Framing Charles

[Fisherman]

11th

On 16th Hebbert, who as you know attended the PM, said:

‘The immediate cause of death was syncope as shown by the condition of the heart and the general bloodlessness of the tissues indicating haemorrhage as the cause of death.’

... aaaand THERE goes Swanson!

[Astatine211]

If Lechmere was JtR wouldn't it make sense to assume Clara Sophia Heard was a very late victim. She even describes her attacker as an elderly man.

[MrBarnett]

Full of blood? After having had both legs severed? Was she positioned standing on her head after that? It needs poiting out that Swansons report was written on the day the body was found, whereas Phillips conclusion about the two cuts to the throat was stated at the inquest two weeks later. With hindsight, that is.

It seems the autopsy was undertaken on the 11:th, the day after Swanson wrote his report, And what did Phillis find? He found that "There was throughout the body an absence of blood in the vessels".

There we are. Same as the 1873 victim.

11th

On 16th Hebbert, who as you know attended the PM, said:

‘The immediate cause of death was syncope as shown by the condition of the heart and the general bloodlessness of the tissues indicating haemorrhage as the cause of death.’

[Fisherman]

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).”

Full of blood? After having had both legs severed? Was she positioned standing on her head after that? It needs pointing out that Swansons report was written on the day the body was found, whereas Phillips conclusion about the two cuts to the throat was stated at the inquest two weeks later. With hindsight, that is.

It seems the autopsy was undertaken on the 11:th, the day after Swanson wrote his report, And what did Phillis find? He found that "There was throughout the body an absence of blood in the vessels".

There we are. Same as the 1873 victim.

[MrBarnett]

Baxter disagreed with Llewellyn about what came first in Bucks Row, the throat cuts or the abdominal ones. I know who my money is on when it comes to medical experience and insights.

As for the Pinchin Street woman, I donīt rule out that the order may have been 1/ Blow on head 2/ Cutting of throat 3/ Dismemberment. The 1873 victim and Tabram seem to encourage such a possibility, and it may well be that Nichols suffered an initial stunning blow to the jaw before the killer set about cutting her.

Regardless of that, my money is on Phillips being our best bet when it comes to how the throat may have been cut at two stages, the second one involving dismemberment.

Both Phillips and Hebbert said there was haemorrhaging. Swanson says there wasn’t and gives that as his reason for favouring a head wound over a cutthroat as COD.

Should we even bother to consider Swanson’s opinion?

[Fisherman]

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.

Baxter disagreed with Llewellyn about what came first in Bucks Row, the throat cuts or the abdominal ones. I know who my money is on when it comes to medical experience and insights.

As for the Pinchin Street woman, I donīt rule out that the order may have been 1/ Blow on head 2/ Cutting of throat 3/ Dismemberment. The 1873 victim and Tabram seem to encourage such a possibility, and it may well be that Nichols suffered an initial stunning blow to the jaw before the killer set about cutting her.

Regardless of that, my money is on Phillips being our best bet when it comes to how the throat may have been cut at two stages, the second one involving dismemberment.

[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).”

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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? :-)

[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.