Framing Charles

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?"

[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]

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.

[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.

[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 ...

[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]

>>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.