Framing Charles

[Fisherman]

What I don't think is probable is that the murderer known as 'Jack the Ripper' simply found a woman standing along a dark back street on what was his route to work--almost as if she was waiting for him-- and he started carving her up there and then.

Then again, who says she was just "standing there"? We know she staggered down Whitechapel Road, and there is every chance that she picked up a client there and took him into Bucks Row to do the business. This you agree with, apparently. Then, after the business was done, she would find herself in Bucks Row and perhaps she would start walking towards the Brady Street junction in order to take a right turn there and walk down to Whitechapel Road again.

How do we exclude the possibility that she, during this two minute walk (she was very drunk) met Charles Lechmere on his way towards the west? And if she did, how do we exclude that she asked him for business?

It is all very easy to say that Whitechapel Road was a centre of prostitution, but since when does that guarantee that all deals are struck there? That is the question you need to answer.

You are very quick to say that the extremely rare similarities inbetween the two murder series will probably be due to how two different men found different reasons to cut away abodminal walls, rip from ribs to pubes and take out hearts and uteri. There is no limit to your imagination in that case, but when you need to imagine a prostitute offering her services to a punter outside of Whitechapel Road, that imagination runs dryer than the Atacama desert.

[MrBarnett]

I’m curious as to whether Henry Tomkins did say this, RJ:

‘The man's answer: no. He had not seen any women in the back streets.’

First, because anything to do with horse slaughterers is of particular interest to me.

And secondly because if he didn’t, if in fact he gave a rather cryptic answer that can best be interpreted as ‘Yes, but I have nothing to do with them’, then you really aren’t playing fair.

[rjpalmer]

It’s good to see you acknowledge the possibility that Lechmere may have met Polly directly on his work route. That would fit Christer’s theory very nicely.

This is a meaningless statement, Gary. I would have expected better.

Lechmere did meet Polly on his route to work--that's not up for debate. The question is whether she was alive and inexplicably loitering as if waiting for him, or whether she was dead and sprawled on the pavement.

The mere fact that Lechmere was in Buck's Row at that time & place is perfectly explained by his commute to work. He has no case to answer.

Ah, but what about the blood evidence? The so-called 'fresh' blood evidence pointing to him having murdered Nichols is non-existent--which you have admitted (see--I do read your posts).

I'm obviously here and spending time looking at the supposed case against Lechmere, so I am approaching it in good faith. I don't dislike either Christer or Ed Stowe, because they are serious researchers and are willing to fight their corner. There are places on the internet where people even deny that Charles Lechmere and Charles Andrew Cross of the inquest are even the same person. I'm not endorsing that; I merely report the news.

I'm just seeing nothing whatsoever that implicates Lechmere. I have admitted that 'ma Lechmere' living near Berner Street is a 'fun fact,' but we see similar elements in other theories. I also recall an instance, some years ago, where there were attempts to implicate a lunatic named Hyam Hyams in the Whitechapel Murders. Much was made of 'coincidental' geography. He grew up on Mitre Street. The 'Thomas Coram' knife was found on the doorstep next to his uncle's home, etc.

But in the end, research done by two talented genealogists showed that the Hyam Hyams of the Stone asylum was not the 'Hyam Hyams' that had these geographic connections to the crimes. So these seemingly damning facts WERE just coincidences.

It might be worth keeping that in mind.

What do you make of ‘I don’t like them’ as a response to the question of whether women ever called at the knacker’s yard?

It's a matter of commonsense as well as the historical record that women solicited on Whitechapel Road--where they could expect to see pedestrians at all hours--instead of randomly wandering back streets hoping to find a client...even a client who announced under oath that he didn't like them and would have likely chase them off.

[Fisherman]

The head was removed some time after the legs and the edges of the cuts had not had time to blacken.


How else can Phillips’ observation be explained?

Perhaps couldn’t tell the difference between dry, blackened flesh and moist (presumably) reddish flesh?

There is also the fact that if the legs were taken off, say on the day before the head, then the surfaces of where the legs had been would be subjected to air. If the throat was cut but the head left on, then it is possible that the wound was closed, depending on the position of the body. The surfaces of the wound could well have been pressed against each other, not allowing for air to have an impact.

Any which way, I think Phillips is the authority here, and if he suggested that the throat was cut twice, then he needs to be listened to.

[Fisherman]

It's a matter of commonsense as well as the historical record that women solicited on Whitechapel Road--where they could expect to see pedestrians at all hours--instead of randomly wandering back streets hoping to find a client...even a client who announced under oath that he didn't like them and would have likely chase them off.

But I am not saying that Nichols randomly walked the back alleys in search of a client. Don´t you read what I am saying? It helps, you know, if you are to criticise it.

I am saying that the deals struck in prostitution hotspots such as Whitechapel Road were subsequently taken care of in the back alleys and dark streets where seclusion was on offer. Once you had engaged in such an affair, you WOULD find yourself in those back alleys and dark streets until you had made your way back to Whitechapel Road. And in the process of making your way back to Whitechapel Road, why would a prostitute not ask passing workmen for business?

So far, you have not managed to explain that. You have only managed to misrepresent what I am suggesting, and that is of course not half bad.

It´s all bad.

[rjpalmer]

I always find that the medicos who saw the bodies and examined them in detail are the ones in the best position - by far - to comment on the practical medical matters. Consequentially, I work from the supposition that they were probably correct when making these kinds of calls. Reasonably, Phillips was quite aware about the moist surface of the neck and what that meant in medical terms.

That's admirable, Fish. But you don't think Swanson was basing his report on medical opinions? He describes the exact physical conditions of the corpse that can be found in Hebbert's notes.

And, correct me if I am wrong, but Hebbert does not state the victim died from a neck wound; only that she died from hemorrhaging. One unnamed detective stated his belief that the victim may have been smashed over the head. As I already noted, though rare, head injuries can cause someone to bleed to death.

As I say, I am planning on doing more research on this puzzling aspect of this most puzzling case.

Until then, good luck on your endeavors.

[MrBarnett]

This is a meaningless statement, Gary. I would have expected better.

Lechmere did meet Polly on his route to work--that's not up for debate. The question is whether she was alive and inexplicably loitering as if waiting for him, or whether she was dead and sprawled on the pavement.

The mere fact that Lechmere was in Buck's Row at that time & place is perfectly explained by his commute to work. He has no case to answer.

Ah, but what about the blood evidence? The so-called 'fresh' blood evidence pointing to him having murdered Nichols is non-existent--which you have admitted (see--I do read your posts).

I'm obviously here and spending time looking at the supposed case against Lechmere, so I am approaching it in good faith. I don't dislike either Christer or Ed Stowe, because they are serious researchers and are willing to fight their corner. There are places on the internet where people even deny that Charles Lechmere and Charles Andrew Cross of the inquest are even the same person. I'm not endorsing that; I merely report the news.

I'm just seeing nothing whatsoever that implicates Lechmere. I have admitted that 'ma Lechmere' living near Berner Street is a 'fun fact,' but we see similar elements in other theories. I also recall an instance, some years ago, where there were attempts to implicate a lunatic named Hyam Hyams in the Whitechapel Murders. Much was made of 'coincidental' geography. He grew up on Mitre Street. The 'Thomas Coram' knife was found on the doorstep next to his uncle's home, etc.

But in the end, research done by two talented genealogists showed that the Hyam Hyams of the Stone asylum was not the 'Hyam Hyams' that had these geographic connections to the crimes. So these seemingly damning facts WERE just coincidences.

It might be worth keeping that in mind.




It's a matter of commonsense as well as the historical record that women solicited on Whitechapel Road--where they could expect to see pedestrians at all hours--instead of randomly wandering back streets hoping to find a client...even a client who announced under oath that he didn't like them and would have likely chase them off.

I’m not remotely convinced that Lechmere was even Polly’s killer. Coincidences abound in life.

What I’m trying to get at with Tomkins (for whom there are several coincidences that could be worked up into a suspect theory) is what his rather odd ‘I don’t like them’ tells us.

If I was in a witness box and I was asked if prostitutes visited my workplace in the early hours (assuming they didn’t) my answer would be along the lines of:

No! Of course not! What an outrageous suggestion!

Not:

I don’t like them.

[MrBarnett]

Who was the detective who suggested the headless woman had been killed by a blow to the head?

It wasn’t Dew, was it? :-)

[Fisherman]

That's admirable, Fish. But you don't think Swanson was basing his report on medical opinions? He describes the exact physical conditions of the corpse that can be found in Hebbert's notes.

And, correct me if I am wrong, but Hebbert does not state the victim died from a neck wound; only that she died from hemorrhaging. One unnamed detective stated his belief that the victim may have been smashed over the head. As I already noted, though rare, head injuries can cause someone to bleed to death.

As I say, I am planning on doing more research on this puzzling aspect of this most puzzling case.

Until then, good luck on your endeavors.

I think you are the one who needs luck. I am the one quoting the medico who examined the body. I think he was quite aware of the parameters involved. That is not "admirable", it is being discerning. The two are different matters.

PS. I dont think the case is puzzling at all. I find it is an open and shut case.

[rjpalmer]

Tompkins (Daily Telegraph):


The Coroner: Is your work noisy?

Witness: No, sir, very quiet.

The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday morning, say after two o'clock?

Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet. The gates were open and we heard no cry.

The Coroner: Did anybody come to the slaughterhouse that night?

Witness: Nobody passed except the policeman.

The Coroner: Are there any women about there?

Witness: Oh! I know nothing about them, I don't like 'em.

The Coroner: I did not ask you whether you like them; I ask you whether there were any about that night.

Witness: I did not see any.

The Coroner: Not in Whitechapel-road?

Witness: Oh, yes, there, of all sorts and sizes; its a rough neighbourhood, I can tell you

* * *

Ergo, I stand by my startling opinion that women solicited in the Whitechapel Road, where pedestrians could be found at all hours, while the backstreets, as reported by Tompkins, were quiet. Implicit in Abberline's remarks about Buck's Row is that this was a quiet spot for concluding a transaction--not for initiating one. It's a simple matter of supply and demand.

If you want to read something more cryptic into Tompkin's statement, don't let me stop you.

[rjpalmer]

Who was the detective who suggested the headless woman had been killed by a blow to the head?

It wasn’t Dew, was it? :-)

Nope. Nor was it 50 years after-the-fact, nor even two.

[MrBarnett]

Tompkins (Daily Telegraph):


The Coroner: Is your work noisy?

Witness: No, sir, very quiet.

The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday morning, say after two o'clock?

Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet. The gates were open and we heard no cry.

The Coroner: Did anybody come to the slaughterhouse that night?

Witness: Nobody passed except the policeman.

The Coroner: Are there any women about there?

Witness: Oh! I know nothing about them, I don't like 'em.

The Coroner: I did not ask you whether you like them; I ask you whether there were any about that night.

Witness: I did not see any.

The Coroner: Not in Whitechapel-road?

Witness: Oh, yes, there, of all sorts and sizes; its a rough neighbourhood, I can tell you

* * *

Ergo, I stand by my startling opinion that women solicited in the Whitechapel Road, where pedestrians could be found at all hours, while the backstreets, as reported by Tompkins, were quiet. Implicit in Abberline's remarks about Buck's Row is that this was a quiet spot for concluding a transaction--not for initiating one. It's a simple matter of supply and demand.

If you want to read something more cryptic into Tompkin's statement, don't let me stop you.

You should read all the press accounts of Tomkins’ testimony before coming to a conclusion. Don’t let me stop you.


They vary. In one version Baxter whether people called at the yard and when Tomkins admitted they sometimes did he asked ‘Women?’ That’s when Tomkins started muttering about not liking them or knowing nothing about them. Baxter then offered him the get out of whether there were women in the WR.

[MrBarnett]

Nope. Nor was it 50 years after-the-fact, nor even two.

Curiously, Swanson dismissed the cut throat option because he claimed there was no haemorrhaging, didn’t he? That only left a head injury, didn’t it? It seems that was his rather flawed reasoning.

I wonder why he disagreed with both Hebbert and Phillips who were both of the opinion that blood loss was the cause of death.

[Fisherman]

Ergo, I stand by my startling opinion that women solicited in the Whitechapel Road, where pedestrians could be found at all hours, while the backstreets, as reported by Tompkins, were quiet. Implicit in Abberline's remarks about Buck's Row is that this was a quiet spot for concluding a transaction--not for initiating one. It's a simple matter of supply and demand.

Regardless, it means that Bucks Row was a place where prostitution took place, at least the business end of it.

And that means that prostitutes found themselves in Bucks Row every now and then.

So why is it that you cannot accept that these prostitutes may have solicited workmen passing by?

And if you cannot for your life embrace that they may have done, what if the punter took the initiative? "Hey lady, how would you like earning a little extra?"

Or were the punters also anxious not to disrupt the rule that all prostitution affairs must be initiated in Whitechapel Road...?

[MrBarnett]

Swanson’s take on the COD - discuss...



“Now from the surgeons it was ascertained, firstly that as the trunk was so full of blood death did not take place from hemorrhage [sic], therefore death could not have taken place by cutting the throat, and the absence of the head prevents them saying that it was from violence to it (which appears to me most probable as the trunk contains no stabs to cause death).”