Framing Charles

[Trevor Marriott]

Once again: every theory that is not proven is based on speculation. And it is not as if speculation is something bad. The Spitalfields victims were all killed along streets where Lechmere would logically have passed en route to work, and so saying that this is in line with him being the culprit and speculating that he was is sound and logical. The same goes for all the other inclusions in the theory - they are speculation, but sound speculation based on the facts.

There was a time when you were a copper, Trevor. During that time, you will on many occasions have suspected various people of being the culprit you looked for. The suspicions you harboured were - hopefully - not taken out of thin air. They should, if you did your job well, have been sound speculation.

Now, forget about how the inquest would have been aware of the name Lechmere until you can prove it. It is unsound speculation until then. Think about it as another of those many unlucky "coincidences" connected to Lechmere - while in scores of other cases there are two names mentioned, telling us that these people used aliases while they were registered by other names, how unlucky is it not that the authorities "forgot" to take down one of the two names the carman had so graciously supplied them with ...

Crimes are not solved on coicidences.

The fact that there was no mention made by the authorities of challenging this anomaly proves that there was nothing sinister when giving his evidence

Do you not think that with the police sitting in on the inquest they would have not sat up and took notice if he gave a different name to that which appeared on his statement, and the same applies to the coroner. There is no mention of anything sinster in his testimony or anything sinister when he was formally exmamined at the inquest.

There is no evidence of any suspicion against by the police at the time, or in any police documents or memoirs therefater.

You have well and truly burnt your bridges with your claims which are without foundation. There is no way back for you, other than to make a public statement accepting Lechmere should now be exonertated from any further suspicion

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Strangely, I'm with Fish on this one--at least halfway. Swanson's statement was written on the 10th, and is obviously based on a conversation with the police surgeons (who he mentions, though not by name); he was informed that the trunk was 'too full of blood' for hemorrhaging to have been the cause of death. It could have been a head wound, he writes, but it was impossible to say, because the head was missing.

But, as Fish rightly notes, the autopsy hadn't even been performed yet (it would be the following day, the 11th) and this belief was obviously revised.

What wasn't revised is what was noticed immediately, and what is stated explicitly in Hebbert's notes: the neck wound was moist and red, while the legs wounds were black and dry.

Thus, there is little or no reason to doubt Swanson's conclusion that "dismemberment had taken place at an earlier period than the head for the raw flesh [of the legs] had from continued exposure dried on the surface which presented a blackened appearance."

He even writes on the 10th that neck still had "blood oozing from it."

But here is where we part company. We know from Fisherman's other writings that he doesn't care for the idea of blood oozing from a body for many minutes, let alone hours and days, yet here we are to believe that the Pinchin Street victim's neck had been slit four or five days earlier and her head removed, yet the wound was still moist, red, and even oozing blood when discovered, despite the fact that the rest of the body is obviously decomposed, patched with green spots, and the hips so far gone that they have even dried out and turned black.

A miracle of almost biblical proportions: a neck wound that remains fresh and oozes blood for nearly a week.

Phillip's had the good grace to admit that his throat cutting theory was just that: a theory. If there had been conclusive evidence for it, it would have been a fact.

As I already stated, there are modern forensic papers outlining case of people who bled to death from head wounds, so that possibility does not contradict Hebbert's report.

I am also finding it remarkably easy to find cases in Victorian Britain of murder victims bleeding to death from cuts to their femoral artery. Had this been the case with the Pinchin Street victim we would not know it, for her legs, like her head, were missing.

My conclusion? Any suggestion that the victim was an East End 'unfortunate' who died from having her throat cut is not made out. Her shapely and well-groomed hands were unaccustomed to the rigors of mangling and charring, and her breasts appeared to have never suckled an infant.

Again, even if the woman was no prostitute - and there are seasoned prostitutes with well shaped hands and groomed nails, just as there are those with such commodities who only just enroll in prostitution - there is absolutely no reason to think that the killer was only able to kill unfortunates or that he must have had that agenda.

As for bleeding times, it is not I who say that a woman with the kind of damage Nichols had would likely bleed out in three to five muntes, it is two renowned forensic pathology professors, so it is them you must convince that you are the better judge of matters medical, not me.

[rjpalmer]

A few femoral artery cases:

A fight between Irishmen in Leeds in 1863: "In a moment the prisoner rose up and with the knife in his hand stabbed the deceased in the femoral artery... carried home, he died in five or six minutes."



Two Irish brothers spar in Roscommon in 1879; one brother is stabbed in the femoral artery, producing "immediate death."




A gamekeeper in Kerry in 1887 is shot in the leg; his femoral artery is severed and he bleeds out in 2 or 3 hours.




Death from hemorrhaging does not have to involve the throat. The legs will suffice, but in the Pinchin case, the legs were missing. We don't know.

[rjpalmer]

Should we even bother to consider Swanson’s opinion?

Strangely, I'm with Fish on this one--at least halfway. Swanson's statement was written on the 10th, and is obviously based on a conversation with the police surgeons (who he mentions, though not by name); he was informed that the trunk was 'too full of blood' for hemorrhaging to have been the cause of death. It could have been a head wound, he writes, but it was impossible to say, because the head was missing.

But, as Fish rightly notes, the autopsy hadn't even been performed yet (it would be the following day, the 11th) and this belief was obviously revised.

What wasn't revised is what was noticed immediately, and what is stated explicitly in Hebbert's notes: the neck wound was moist and red, while the legs wounds were black and dry.

Thus, there is little or no reason to doubt Swanson's conclusion that "dismemberment had taken place at an earlier period than the head for the raw flesh [of the legs] had from continued exposure dried on the surface which presented a blackened appearance."

He even writes on the 10th that neck still had "blood oozing from it."

But here is where we part company. We know from Fisherman's other writings that he doesn't care for the idea of blood oozing from a body for many minutes, let alone hours and days, yet here we are to believe that the Pinchin Street victim's neck had been slit four or five days earlier and her head removed, yet the wound was still moist, red, and even oozing blood when discovered, despite the fact that the rest of the body is obviously decomposed, patched with green spots, and the hips so far gone that they have even dried out and turned black.

A miracle of almost biblical proportions: a neck wound that remains fresh and oozes blood for nearly a week.

Phillip's had the good grace to admit that his throat cutting theory was just that: a theory. If there had been conclusive evidence for it, it would have been a fact.

As I already stated, there are modern forensic papers outlining case of people who bled to death from head wounds, so that possibility does not contradict Hebbert's report.

I am also finding it remarkably easy to find cases in Victorian Britain of murder victims bleeding to death from cuts to their femoral artery. Had this been the case with the Pinchin Street victim we would not know it, for her legs, like her head, were missing.

My conclusion? Any suggestion that the victim was an East End 'unfortunate' who died from having her throat cut is not made out. Her shapely and well-groomed hands were unaccustomed to the rigors of mangling and charring, and her breasts appeared to have never suckled an infant.

[Fisherman]

But that does not make him a killer.

Not on its own, no - but it adds to the case against him.

The authorities at the inquest would have been aware of this anomaly, and it seems were happy with whatever explantion he gave to explain this, which he clearly did, although we do not have anything to show what explantion was given.

No, there is no reason at all to assume that the authorities were aware of his name change. Once the authorities had two names for one person, they noted them both in their reports. And understandably so - the name Cross was not the one he was registered by, and so it would not help to find him in the future. The relevance of this is seen in how it was not until in the early years of this century that he was identified.
In case you are unaware of it, the reason the police and inquest asks for a name is to enable them to link the person asked to an established identity. If this was not so, there would be no reason at all to ask for it.

If they were happy with it you should be and therefore it removes one of you reasons for suspecting him to be a killer.

No, Trevor, even if they WERE happy with it - and the abundantly clear indication is that they did not have a clue about it - it would not keep me happy. I would still say that changing your names in combination with a case of deathly violence where you may be the culprit is something that does not look good at all.

The rest of your suspicions are nothing more than speculative

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Once again: every theory that is not proven is based on speculation. And it is not as if speculation is something bad. The Spitalfields victims were all killed along streets where Lechmere would logically have passed en route to work, and so saying that this is in line with him being the culprit and speculating that he was is sound and logical. The same goes for all the other inclusions in the theory - they are speculation, but sound speculation based on the facts.

There was a time when you were a copper, Trevor. During that time, you will on many occasions have suspected various people of being the culprit you looked for. The suspicions you harboured were - hopefully - not taken out of thin air. They should, if you did your job well, have been sound speculation.

Now, forget about how the inquest would have been aware of the name Lechmere until you can prove it. It is unsound speculation until then. Think about it as another of those many unlucky "coincidences" connected to Lechmere - while in scores of other cases there are two names mentioned, telling us that these people used aliases while they were registered by other names, how unlucky is it not that the authorities "forgot" to take down one of the two names the carman had so graciously supplied them with ...

[Trevor Marriott]

It remains an anomaly when somebody who otherwise always presented himself as Charles Lechmere to the authorities suddenly decided that he was Charles Cross instead when witnessing at a murder inquest. As has been pointed out, it is a very clear example of what an anomaly is - an exception to the rule.

But that does not make him a killer.

The authorities at the inquest would have been aware of this anomaly, and it seems were happy with whatever explantion he gave to explain this, which he clearly did, although we do not have anything to show what explantion was given.

If they were happy with it you should be and therefore it removes one of you reasons for suspecting him to be a killer.

The rest of your suspicions are nothing more than speculative

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Just a refreshener before we start thinking that Lechmere must have been known as Cross at Pickfords.

Lechmere said he had worked for Pickfords for twenty years when he testified at the inquest of Polly Nichols.

This means that he would have been hired at around 1868. The Broad Street station where we know Lechmere worked as a carman at the time of the Nichols murder opened for business on May 18, 1868. It therefore seems to fit with the possibility that this was where he had worked all along, although we cannot know for sure.

Charles was born in 1849. In 1858, his mother married Thomas Cross, a policeman.

On the 16th of January 1859, the year after, Charles and his sister were baptized. They were given the name Lechmere, in spite of how the siblings mother was (bigamously) married to Thomas Cross.

In 1861, the census of that year recorded all the members of the family by the name of Cross, Charles included. It may well be that the informant was Thomas Cross. If this was the case, what is proven is not that all the members of the family called themselves Cross. What is proven is that Thomas Cross chose to call his family members by his name as he passed on information to the census takers.

In 1869, Thomas Cross died.

In July of 1870, Charles married Elizabeth Bostock. He signed the marriage certificate "Charles Lechmere".

Much as none of this prevents Charles from having called himself Cross at work, how does it prove - or even make it likely - that he did so? He was baptized Lechmere nine years before he was hired by Pickfords, he signed himself Lechmere when marrying two years after having started working for Pickfords and he went on to fill out every form from the authorities with that name and to answer every question from the authorities about his identity with the same Lechmere name, with the one exception of the Polly Nichols murder inquest.

Having this information at hand does not allow for claiming as a fact that he was known as Charles Cross at Pickfords. On the contrary, the likelier thing is that he was known as Lechmere there. And once more, what I have to do is to point out the possibilities. It is up to those who think that they can deny these possibilities to prove that he was known as Cross at his work.

It remains an anomaly when somebody who otherwise always presented himself as Charles Lechmere to the authorities suddenly decided that he was Charles Cross instead when witnessing at a murder inquest. As has been pointed out, it is a very clear example of what an anomaly is - an exception to the rule.

[Fisherman]

>>Could you explain what ”large volume of people” you are talking about? <<

It's pretty clear from everything I've posted, I don't believe there was a large volume.

But you wrote: " To be true, such a large volume of people have to have kept the secret, that is just not within the bounds of credibility." Why did you do that, if you dont think there was a large volume?


>> Therefore, he would likely have had a substntial amount of his contacts living in that area.<<

Ah! So there's the large volume that you think existed!

This is getting more and more spaced ...

All these people who apparently never read a paper, never listened to gossip, never knew his mother, never knew where he moved to and quite possibly never knew he was called Cross at work. You are chasing your tail once again.

We don' t know that he was called Cross at work, however. All we know is that during the time he kept his work at Pickfords, he signed himself Lechmere every time he was in contact with authorities, with the one exception of when he was involved in a case of violent death. So just how likely is it that he used one name at work and another one when filling out forms and talking to authorities?
To have a case, you must PROVE that he called himself Cross at work, not just blithely suggest that this was so. The cards are stacked very much against you when we look at the signature track record.

>>I am simply pointing this out as a possibility you seem to have overlooked. <<

Since I've been responding to the notion, indisputably, I can't have overlooked the possibility, just pointed out the legion of problems inherent in the suggestion.

What YOU perceive a problems, Dusty. But you perceive a lot, Lechmere calling himself Cross at work amongst it. The fact of the matter is that your suggestion that it would be unlikely that Lechmere visited his mother without bringing his wife is nothing but another example of these perceptions of yours.

Again, I need only point to possibilities and open doors. You need to PROVE that they were shut before you have a case. Until that happens, all you represent is someone who is clever enough to say "Maybe it was not him".

And that really isnīt much of an achievement. I can say it myself, although I would not be truthful if I did.

[drstrange169]

>>Could you explain what ”large volume of people” you are talking about? <<

It's pretty clear from everything I've posted, I don't believe there was a large volume.


>> Therefore, he would likely have had a substntial amount of his contacts living in that area.<<

Ah! So there's the large volume that you think existed!

All these people who apparently never read a paper, never listened to gossip, never knew his mother, never knew where he moved to and quite possibly never knew he was called Cross at work. You are chasing your tail once again.



>>I am simply pointing this out as a possibility you seem to have overlooked. <<

Since I've been responding to the notion, indisputably, I can't have overlooked the possibility, just pointed out the legion of problems inherent in the suggestion.

[Fisherman]

I see no reason why he wouldn't visit is daughter on his day off, if indeed it was his day off, but, again it's stretching things to think a mother wouldn't want to visit her daughter too and make the visit a family affair.

Just noticed this. It brings us back to the territory staked out when it was suggested that Lechmere would be too knackered to go out on the Saturday night, and so he is likely not the killer of Stride. It has the same overall qualities: It canīt have been Lechmere because it predisposed that he visited his mother and if he did, he would have brought his wife.

We really need to do better.

I have numerous times said that there is not need to think that the only reason Lechmere could have had for seeking out St Georges on the night of the double event was to visit his mother. He had grown up and lived for many years in the area before he moved to Doveton Street in mid June, not many weeks before the double event.

Therefore, he would likely have had a substntial amount of his contacts living in that area. It is likely that he would have frequented the pubs in the area for all those years, and so it would not be unexpected if this was where he spent an evening out. And if he went for a pub crawl, it is not likely that he would bring his wife.

However! If we DO reason that he visited his mother on the occasion, then we cannot know if he brought his wife or not. He may of course have done so, and then, when it was time to go home, Lechmere could have continued his evening with a pub crawl whereas Elizabeth went back home.

I am simply pointing this out as a possibility you seem to have overlooked. I know full well that the likely next argument is "He would never have left her to walk home alone in darkness along those streets, and so it cannot have been Lechmere who was the killer."

All I am doing is to point out how the possibilities are much, much wider than you seem to allow for. Plus I am taking heart in the knowledge that if these kinds of things are the best you can do when trying to rule Lechmere out, then I really do not have much to worry about ...

[Fisherman]

The idea that the man widely reported as discovering Mrs Nichols body, was in a pub near Berner St on the night of Mrs Strides murder socialising, was not the subject of local knowledge is stretching things a little too thin for comfort.

I see no reason why he wouldn't visit is daughter on his day off, if indeed it was his day off, but, again it's stretching things to think a mother wouldn't want to visit her daughter too and make the visit a family affair.

We are back to, if the Cross connections are so blindingly clear to people, pushing 200 years later, why weren't they blindingly obvious to all his family, friends, neighbours and associates?

We are at the hurdle conspiracy theories tend to fall at. To be true, such a large volume of people have to have kept the secret, that is just not within the bounds of credibility.

Could you explain what ”large volume of people” you are talking about? The ones who knew that he had had a stepdad named Cross? Nineteen years earlier?

Cross, by the way, is a common name. You may want/need to weigh that into your ”conspiracy theory” musings. Together with some sense.

[drstrange169]

The idea that the man widely reported as discovering Mrs Nichols body, was in a pub near Berner St on the night of Mrs Strides murder socialising, was not the subject of local knowledge is stretching things a little too thin for comfort.

I see no reason why he wouldn't visit is daughter on his day off, if indeed it was his day off, but, again it's stretching things to think a mother wouldn't want to visit her daughter too and make the visit a family affair.

We are back to, if the Cross connections are so blindingly clear to people, pushing 200 years later, why weren't they blindingly obvious to all his family, friends, neighbours and associates?

We are at the hurdle conspiracy theories tend to fall at. To be true, such a large volume of people have to have kept the secret, that is just not within the bounds of credibility.

[drstrange169]

>> (the meeting got underway about 11pm.) <<

And why do you think it was at that time? Surely, to allow overworked employees, time to finish their extra workload and rest up.

[drstrange169]

>>Was he ever known as Cross in and around James Street? Perhaps not. If not, then by not mentioning the name Lechmere he was effectively concealing his identity.<<

"'Ere, Charlie, it's your turn to buy the pints, now who is this Charles allen who lives in your house at 22 Doveton St?"

[MrBarnett]

I neither said nor implied that "he could have found a victim in the late afternoon and killed her in broad daylight". I said "even with an extra long shift, he could have found a victim five or six hours before Elizabeth Stride was killed".

Elizabeth Stride was killed between 12:45am and 1am. Five hours before that is 7:45pm to 8pm. Six hours before that is 6:45pm to 7pm.

On the night that Stride and Eddowes were killed, sunset was 5:42pm and full dusk was 6:14pm.

"Six hours before Elizabeth Stride was killed" is two hours after sunset, not "in broad daylight".



I never claimed expert knowledge; I made educated guesses. There's your double standard again. When Fisherman speculates about Lechmere taking time off and switching shifts to fit his theory, you accept it uncritically. When I point out the reasons for standard shift starts (standard delivery times by the railroads, inability to call and change employee shifts when they don't have telephones, etc.) you go after me with enthusiasm.

I gave no estimate for when Lechmere finished work on Saturday. I said "So you're suggesting that Charles Lechmere stayed up for 23 hours straight in order to murder Stride and Eddowes? That's not impossible, but even with an extra long shift, he could have found a victim five or six hours before Elizabeth Stride was killed."

That point is true whether Lechmere worked an average shift, a long shift, a short shift, or even if he'd taken that Saturday off.

Perhaps you could explain the ‘education’ you have in respect of Pickfords’ activities as agents of the LNWR.

As for your suggestion that I have not challenged any of Christer’s speculations - I’m afraid I have to once again request you do your homework.

Of course Lechmere could have found a victim while it was still light. You’re absolutely correct there. But I’m not sure why you made that point.