Framing Charles

[Simon Wood]

Coroner Wynne Baxter, 22nd September 1888—

" . . . in the case of Nichols, the wretch was disturbed before he had accomplished his object, and having failed in the open street he tries again, within a week of his failure, in a more secluded place.”

The theory worked once, and would soon work again.

[rjpalmer]

The Pinchin plums are interesting; I can see where someone might want to make something of this, particularly if they accept Matthew Packer's story.

[rjpalmer]

Do you believe Polly’s killer was interrupted?

I think the question I'd ask in response to Michael Richards's comment is whether you or anyone else accepts Professor Larsson's claim that, based on the geographical locations of the crimes, it is 5,000,000 to 1 that the killer is anyone other than Charles Lechmere?

I have said that if Lechmere was the killer (and he was, actually), then he would likely be prone to lying. And in fact, although he SAID he left home at 3.20, devious bastards who do these kinds of things may SAY one thing but do another, and so he may have left at 3.00. Or 2.47. Or 3.02. Or any other time he chose to in order to allow for him to find somebody to kill and cut up before proceeding to his work, and then - surprise, surprise - he lied about it at the inquest.

Naughty, I know, but there you are.

I think this has been flogged enough that it requires no further comment, but the thinking here is that Lechmere crept out of his house 45 minutes early in order to find a prostitute, and, succeeding--probably in the Whitechapel Road, as this was their usual plod--he brought her back to his own route to work, and then was unfortunate enough to be caught murdering her at the exact moment he would have been there anyway, had he simply been walking to work at his usual time.

A remarkable example of a 'reverse alibi.'

[MrBarnett]

hahahahaha!!! oh god here we go

I think he was, that’s why he pulled down her skirt...

;-)

[Abby Normal]

Do you believe Polly’s killer was interrupted?

hahahahaha!!! oh god here we go

[MrBarnett]

I believe that its likely many people could be found that might have taken routes to or from work late at night, or just out and about in the area, perhaps being homeless... that passed one or more murder sites on their respective given nights. Lots of men working at night in warehousing, at the docks, slaughterhouses...etc. One seen over a victim just after the attack might well be due to the act being on the sidewalk on an open ended street and as such just a pass through for foot traffic.

I dont think its a real surprise that the next murder is committed well off the street.

Do you believe Polly’s killer was interrupted?

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that its likely many people could be found that might have taken routes to or from work late at night, or just out and about in the area, perhaps being homeless... that passed one or more murder sites on their respective given nights. Lots of men working at night in warehousing, at the docks, slaughterhouses...etc. One seen over a victim just after the attack might well be due to the act being on the sidewalk on an open ended street and as such just a pass through for foot traffic.

I dont think its a real surprise that the next murder is committed well off the street.

[MrBarnett]

Interesting finds, RJ. Pickfords had hundreds of employees, so their various depots probably had separate bank holiday beanfeasts.

A while back I found a list of a Pickfords cricket team in the 1860s. It was the team from their Haydon Square depot. No Cross or Lechmere mentioned.

We know that Lechmere had worked for Pickfords for over 20 years, but what we don’t know is where. Haydon Square is interesting because it’s in H Div but it’s quite close to Mitre Square. In fact, if you were in Mitre Square and wanted the nearest exit from the City police jurisdiction, you would head for Haydon Square. Moving east from there you would be just south of Whitechapel High Street and Goulston Street.

[rjpalmer]

It looks like Pickford's annual bean-feasts were held on August Bank Holiday week; here's one from 1886, with employees from Hastings, etc. As you can see, it was held on Monday itself.

What this means for Lechmere in 1888, I have no idea, or whether he would even be at the celebration in Woolwich. I'm assuming he would have been at some celebration. It's rather odd that the 1888 event was held on a Tuesday. Does this mean that Pickford's employees worked the Bank Holiday weekend and then had Tuesday off?

[Abby Normal]

Well, judging by the following, there's little doubt Lechmere was an insomniac.

Having killed Martha Tabram at 3 a.m. on August 7th, he then worked his normal shift before heading to the festivities in Woolwich. By 5 pm or so he was having dinner in Hampton Court, and was still boozing it at midnight with his mates made their way back to Woolwich, on the other side of the river. Two hours of shut-eye and he's ready to hit the roads again. No wonder he was running over children.

--Just a stab at humor. No harm intended.

lol!!!

[rjpalmer]

Well, judging by the following, there's little doubt Lechmere was an insomniac.

Having killed Martha Tabram at 3 a.m. on August 7th, he then worked his normal shift before heading to the festivities in Woolwich. By 5 pm or so he was having dinner in Hampton Court, and was still boozing it at midnight with his mates made their way back to Woolwich, on the other side of the river. Two hours of shut-eye and he's ready to hit the roads again. No wonder he was running over children.

--Just a stab at humor. No harm intended.

[MrBarnett]

I’m off for a while too.

[MrBarnett]

Not in the least. Where did I suggest Lechmere didn't like a pint? It's not a matter of drinking, it's a matter of staying up until 2 a.m. in the morning at the end of the workweek, if you're used to getting up at a "lark's fart." Anyway you slice it, you're having Lechmere pull a 23 hour day, made more palatable by a theoretical cat-nap. I'd be more inclined to accept this scenario if Lechmere was twenty, rather than forty. And perhaps getting drunk with dear old mum was an East End thing on a Saturday night, but my life experience was quite a bit different.

But, on to something more interesting:




I think this opinion is on very unsteady ground, Gary.

Here’s what Donald Swanson wrote: “the dismemberment [ie., of the legs] had taken place at an earlier period than the head for the raw flesh had from continued exposure dried on the surface which presented a blackened appearance in consequence.”

We see confirmation for this in the notes of Dr. Hebbert: "the cut surfaces at the hips were black and dry, but the surface at the neck moist and red."

In other words, the legs were removed some days before the head was removed. By all appearances, the woman was murdered or even killed accidently (one suggestion was blows to the head) and her legs were then removed, probably to aid concealment. It wasn’t until days later, and only shortly before the body was dumped, that the head was removed…almost certainly to thwart any attempt at identification, as we see in domestic 'torso' cases.

How do you square this with street throat slashing cases akin to the 'Ripper'? It seems like a very different sort of crime. Why wouldn't her throat be black if she had her throat cut at the time she was dismembered?

Okay, I'm off for awhile.

P.S. I will be amused in the unlikely event that Lechmere's name is ever found on a list of teetotalers. His midnight visit to Ma Lechmere will then have been a prayer meeting. I suppose even in the East End there must have been respectable types that went to bed on a Saturday night, so as not to be late for church services in the morning.

I have to pull you up on the ‘cat nap’. There were 20 something hours between him starting work and the pubs closing. Some carmen worked 12 hour shifts, but if his routine involved deliveries to early morning markets, then his shift might have been 8/9 hrs or so. Back at home by 2, he could have got his head down for 5/6/7 hours and still had plenty of time for a pint or three and a quick hello to his old Ma. There’s nothing remotely implausible about that.

[MrBarnett]

im fifty five and after a hard weeks work friday night i occasionally enjoy going out drinking sometimes till all hours of the morning. sure you can be tired but the adreniline to blow off steam kicks in, the energy of the bars nightlife etc. and thats without even being a serial killer out on the hunt.

Its a non issue.

I’m 66 and can still tie one on when the mood takes, though I gave up all that working malarkey years ago.

I ask myself these questions:

Is it likely that a 39-year-old East End working man would have liked a few beers? Yes.

What is the most likely night of the week that CAL would have gone for a few pints with his mates? Saturday?

Where in Aug, 1888 would he most likely have gone for a drink? The Bishopsgate area near where he worked, or St Georges where his mates/neighbours probably drank. And because his mother and daughter were also in St Georges, St Georges edges it.

This is all blindingly obvious, but when you have someone (not RJ) suggesting CAL being in St Georges for social reasons on Saturday night is implausible it needs reiterating.

As for the sleep thing, there were more than enough hours between 4am and pub closing time for him to do his shift and get his head down for a few hours afterwards before going to the pub. Any sleep deficit could be made up on Sunday.

[MrBarnett]

I’ll go back and read it again, but my impression was that Phillips believed the blood had been drained from the body by a cut/cuts to the neck, but that the head being removed later, all trace of the those earlier cuts had been removed.

His actual words were:

’I believe that death arose from loss of blood.’

’The supposition - (and only a supposition) - which presents itself to my mind is that there had been a former incision of the neck, the signs of which had disappeared on the subsequent separation of the head. The loss of blood could not have come from the stomach, and I could not trace it coming from the lungs. I have a strong opinion that it did not.’

What I think he’s saying is that in his opinion her death was caused by a cut neck/throat severing major blood vessels.’ Same as the others?