Framing Charles

[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.

[MrBarnett]

Is English your second language? Or are you just unfamiliar with American English? Here in the States, the transportation of goods by vehicle is called "shipping", regardless of what vehicle or vehicles were used. Shipping refers to road transport of goods, rail transport of goods, air transport of goods, and water transport of goods.

If I were discussing an American historical event, I would make an effort to use American terminology.

It’s interesting to learn that you think your knowledge of modern US ‘shipping’ practices is somehow relevant to railway cartage in Victorian London.

Were you not aware that when Paul arrived, Nichols’ clothing had already been pulled down over her abdominal wounds? You seem not to appreciates a lot of the crucial facts underlying Christer’s theory.

I can’t remember, have you read the book? If you have, perhaps you should read it again.

[Fiver]

It’s odd that you use the word ‘shipping’ to describe road transport.

Is English your second language? Or are you just unfamiliar with American English? Here in the States, the transportation of goods by vehicle is called "shipping", regardless of what vehicle or vehicles were used. Shipping refers to road transport of goods, rail transport of goods, air transport of goods, and water transport of goods.

[Fiver]

Yes, he could have found a victim in the late afternoon and killed her in broad daylight. That’s possible.

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".

With your expert knowledge of Lechmere’s shifts, when do you imagine he finished work on Saturday?

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.

[Fisherman]

When I am incorrect, I acknowledge and correct it. You continue to claim Nichols skirts being pulled down was odd, even though Robert Paul said he did it. You continue to claim Paul did not see Lechemre in front of him, when Paul testified that he did see Lechmere before reaching him. You continue to claim the bloody apron found at St Philips Church was found the same day as the Pinich Street Torso, when it was actually found the next day.

The clothing was already pulled down as Paul arrived. That is what needs an explanation.

Of course Paul saw Lechmere before he arrived outside Browns. What I am saying is that it is odd that Paul did not see Lechmere walking in front of himself.

I have from the outset said that the apron was found the day after the body was dumped. If I have said otherwise on some occasion, it is a simple mistake. If you read my book you will see this.

So three wrongs out of three. Well done. You are true to your standards. It may be that I leave your postsunanswered in the future. I have better things to do than to correct you.

[Fiver]

The distance was perhaps 150-200 yards. Expressing it otherwise, it was a stoneīs throw away.

You need to be informed about the things you debate about. You said that you knew where Maria Louisa lived, and you didnīt. It is a VERY shaky ground to level criticism from, Iīm afraid.

When I am incorrect, I acknowledge and correct it. You continue to claim Nichols skirts being pulled down was odd, even though Robert Paul said he did it. You continue to claim Paul did not see Lechemre in front of him, when Paul testified that he did see Lechmere before reaching him. You continue to claim the bloody apron found at St Philips Church was found the same day as the Pinich Street Torso, when it was actually found the next day.

[Astatine211]

All post, I believe.

The medical assessments of whether victims had ever borne children were a bit hit and miss, I think. Alice McKenzie and Rose Mylett (? from memory) were both said not to have had children when in fact they had.

Okay. Thank you

[MrBarnett]

Alternatively hemorrhaging could've been caused by severing of the aorta rather than cutting of the throat. Is it known if the abdominal mutilations were post mortem or pre mortem?

Although they could confirm the Pinchin Street victim had never had any children they could not rule out pregnancy. One of the possible explanations for the torsos were botched abortions therefore severing of the aorta would make sense. However this would not explain the torso being covered in bruises.

All post, I believe.

The medical assessments of whether victims had ever borne children were a bit hit and miss, I think. Alice McKenzie and Rose Mylett (? from memory) were both said not to have had children when in fact they had.

[Astatine211]

But, hey, that’s another story. How do we progress beyond the hung jury in respect of the Pinchin Street victim’s COD?

Alternatively hemorrhaging could've been caused by severing of the aorta rather than cutting of the throat. Is it known if the abdominal mutilations were post mortem or pre mortem?

Although they could confirm the Pinchin Street victim had never had any children they could not rule out pregnancy. One of the possible explanations for the torsos were botched abortions therefore severing of the aorta would make sense. However this would not explain the torso being covered in bruises.

[MrBarnett]

This is from Lloyds 7/2/1909. Sourcing clippings is always helpful. It looks like it is the same woman mentioned before.

She was seriously ill, starving and suffering from heart disease and exposure. That she might have crumpled to a heap in George Yard and been discovered by a patrolling PC fits very nicely ;-). That’s very different from Kate Eddowes agitating to get out of Bishopsgate nick so she could go and lie in the middle of the pavement in Mitre Square.

But, hey, that’s another story. How do we progress beyond the hung jury in respect of the Pinchin Street victim’s COD?

On the one hand we have Phillips suggesting a cut throat and Hebbert pointing to haemorrhage.

On the other we have Swanson saying the complete opposite and RJ sitting on the fence.

[MrBarnett]

Although the details are slightly off, perhaps the same woman, Clara Heard, dead from starvation six months later.

Maybe a case for Ms. Rubenhold? Clara seems to have had a habit of sleeping rough in the streets at 'at all hours of the night' including the footway in George Yard.

Aren't such cases mythical?

I think that’s the woman in the JTRForums thread. Her husband, Mark, died in early 1908.

Who said they were mythical?

I hope you’re not misrepresenting something I’ve said.

[rjpalmer]

Although the details are slightly off, perhaps the same woman, Clara Heard, dead from starvation six months later.

Maybe a case for Ms. Rubenhold? Clara seems to have had a habit of sleeping rough in the streets at 'at all hours of the night' including the footway in George Yard.

Aren't such cases mythical?

[MrBarnett]

Tabram was definately a Ripper murder. Amongst the C5 there already enough evidence of escalation so naturally Tabram fits the pattern.

The only alternative is she was brutally killed by a random drunk soldier who was never identified and within a few weeks a serial killer just so happens to start being active in the immediate vicinity whose murders share certain unique details.

There’s no ‘definitely’ about it. And there is precious little escalation in the c5. The differences there are can be explained by differing degrees of opportunity. If you believe in a c5, Stride and Kelly must tell you that.

The alternatives for Tabram are not so limited. She could have been killed by anyone. If you believe Pearly Poll’s story and you trust Dr Killeen’s TOD, why would you think she was killed by a soldier?

If you doubt PP, then it gets interesting.

[Astatine211]

Another unique case of a woman being stabbed in the ‘lower part’ in the East End. If Tabram has to be a Ripper, so does she.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...rick-lane-1908

Tabram was definately a Ripper murder. Amongst the C5 there already enough evidence of escalation so naturally Tabram fits the pattern.

The only alternative is she was brutally killed by a random drunk soldier who was never identified and within a few weeks a serial killer just so happens to start being active in the immediate vicinity whose murders share certain unique details.

[MrBarnett]

This occured in Whitechapel on August 28th/ 29th 1908. Almost exactly 20 years after Nichols murder (exactly 20 years if going off the day of the week rather than the date). It has all the hallmarks of a Ripper killing yet it is significantly less successful, maybe due to an aging Ripper decreasing strength. The attacker was never apprehended yet was described as elderly which could support this. Lechmere is the only suspect I'm aware of who was alive and free around this time, albeit much older.

Another unique case of a woman being stabbed in the ‘lower part’ in the East End. If Tabram has to be a Ripper, so does she.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-victims/33649-mary-webber-brick-lane-1908