Framing Charles

[Fiver]

Well, the idea that Lechmere couldn't have been there on a Saturday Night is, of course, nonsense; on the other hand, I don't see how a 1 a.m. murder preceding his day off 'fits nicely.'

If he's slogging to work at 3.30 a.m. for years on end, then he's most likely in a routine of hitting the hay by 8 or 9 in the evening. (I speak from some experience on this score). And he's made a rather long day of it if he's worked the Saturday shift and is still roaming the streets at 1 a.m. later that night. Working men (and women) are famous for letting their hair down on Saturday night, but if he's a 3.30 a.m. riser with a large family, I'm thinking 11 p.m. would hit him like a brick wall. Nor is the idea of Lechmere getting up 2 1/2 hours early on his day off, in order to trawl the streets, after a six day work week, all that convincing. Even a murderer gets knackered.

Exactly. The theory requires Lechmere to leave the house at least 3 hours earlier than he normally would. Make that 4 if, as some theorize, Lechmere visited his mother before going on to commit the double event and visit Goulston Street.

[Fisherman]

Thank you for the information, but that is a very inaccurate description of the distance between Dutfield's Yard, where Stride was killed, and 1 Maryann Street.

From Dutfield's Yard you'd have to walk south on Berner Street, past Fanny Mortimer, who didn't see Lechmere. He would have to walk four blocks south past Fairclough, Boyd, and Everard Streets until he reached Ellen Street. Then walk a block east to Stutfield Street. Then walk another block south to Maryann Street.

Berner Street was not a through street and it angled against him, so it would not be Lechmere's route from his home to 1 Maryann Street. It would be a minimum of a 3 block deviation from Lechemere's route between his home and his mother's residence at 1 Maryann Street.

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.

[Fisherman]

How is this a triviality?

It is a triviality since Lechmere may well NOT have worked on the day the Pinchin Street body was dumped. It is not as if it is an established fact, is it?
When there is very poignant evidence pointing in somebodyīs direction, and that person is likely to have an alibi on this kind of ground (he normally worked on the day in question),it is not as if the police accept that he MUST have done so since he usually did. What they do is to look int whether he may actually NOT have worked that day - and they do so because the evidence involved calls upon them to do it.
As I said, he may have swopped his working day, he may have been handed another schedule by his employer and so on. These are and remain very trivial matters.

Perhaps you've moved on, Fish, and have abandoned the earlier claims, but a major plank in the documentary's argument was that Lechmere's work schedule--his comings & goings to work--placed him at the scene of the murders 'at the time they occurred.' Scobie even used the phrase that Lechmere was 'geographically AND physically' linked to the scene of the crimes by this 'coincidence' of timings.

Did you not read my post? I am saying that the Nichols murder suggests that his working day started at 4 AM, and so the other Spitalfields murders would fit that schedule, as would the Stride and Eddowed murders if his day off was Sunday. That does not men, however, that I predispose that he must have worked on Tuesday the 10th of September 1889. As I said, there can have been a lot of trivial reasons why he perhaps didnīt.
It is not rocket science, RJ, is it?

You yourself set the groundwork for this line of reasoning, and this is why critics of the Lechmere theory keep bringing up instances that seem to conflict with this theoretical time table. It's not really very surprising that 'Fiver' does so too, is it? By suggesting that the Chapman murder and the Pinchin Street deposit took place after Lechmere's commute to work?

The Chapman murder was never regarded as having taken place late back in the day. The Home Office files are clear on the point: "doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: - but medical evidence says about 4 o'cl." So they decided that the three witnesses needed to be doubted, and it is only in our own "enlightened" times that the mantra has become that Chapman died at 5.30 or later. I have never thought so for a minute, and I explain why in my book. Regardless if we want to go with the doubtful evidence (be my guest) or the medical one, the fact remains that we cannot claim that it is a proven thing that Lechmere could not be Chapmans killer.
As for the Pinchon Street torso, we should ask how it works together with the likely working times for Lechmere, so I donīt criticize Fiver for it. I criticise him for claiming that it is proven that Lechmere cannot have been the killer/dumper. Thatīs where he goes very, very wrong - and he has a tradition of doing so. Itīs up to you if you want to go along for that particular ride or not.

All I am saying is that one can't have their cake and eat it, too.

Which reads "If it is reasoned that Lechmere worked from 4 AM in the mornings between August and November of 1888, then it must be accepted that he was at work on Tuesday the 10th of September 1889 too".
Thatīs great stuff, R J. You should be proud of yourself - you just invented Ripperological fundamentalism as an art form.

If it is now being admitted that Lechemere's work schedule is completely unknown and unknowable, then the documentary obviously made a deeply misleading claim, and no such 'coincidence' of timings exists.

Then again, no such thing is admitted. It may of course be a dream of yours, but alas, it never happened. This is a simple case of pointing out that people who have a schedule at work sometimes have that schedule changed over the years, and they sometimes swop shifts with working comrades. Actually, they sometimes call in sick, even! No matter how you may believe that it unfair of me to suggest such things, they are actually - here it comes again - perfectly trivial.

Lechmere has no alibi; on the other hand, his known movements do not in any way implicate him.

Fair enough?

Fair? More like dumb, actually. We both know that his movements involve being in place in Bucks Row at a time when Nichols would go on to bleed for many a minute, and so he IS implicated in one of the cases.

As I have said before, he may have been in Jamaica when Tabram had her heart pierced, building an igloo in Greenland when Chapman died, digging gold in the Yukon when Stride fell prey, hunting ducks in Denmark when Eddowes lost her life and locked in the toilet of the British Museum when Kelly was cut up. The thing is, we donīt know. But we DO know that the implications of the Nichols murder is that he was instead passing through Spitalfields as Tabram, Chapman and Kelly died.
He therefore fits the bill as well as one can possibly hope for. End of.

In the Pinchin Street case, we can see that it seems unlikely that he worked the 4AM shift and still dumped the body in Pinchin Street. But the implications as such are that he was the killer, and so we must ask ourselves if we can overcome the "problem". And yes, we can:

- He may have swopped shifts with somebody.
- He may have worked to another schedule - a year had passed and people DO change schedules every now and then.
- He may have called in sick.
- He may even have worked from 4 AM, and taken the body along on his morning tour and dumped it (it is not a suggestion I favour, but is it impossible? No.)
- Pennett may have been wrong about how the body was not in place when he passed the spot earlier.
- Somebody may have dumped the body for him.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Now, why would we work from the assumption that there IS an explanation? Why do we not do as Fiver and you and claim that it is completely impossible that Lechmere was the one who dumped the body?

Well, that brings us back to the question you left unanswered for some reason (because you have no good answer, perhaps...?):

The Pinchin Street woman was part of a series that involved cutting from ribs to pubes (very, very unusual), that encompassed taking out sexual organs (very, very, very unusual), that involved taking out non-sexual organs (even more unusual) and that also involved cutting away the abdominal wall in large sections from victims (almost unheard of and unusual in the extreme). Further to this, in both series, rings were taken from the victims fingers, and in both series, there was a lack of signs of physical torture, something that should be expcted in the torso series at any rate (abduction murders and murders where the killer see to it that he has ample time alone with his victims in a secluded space will normally involve serious elements of torture).

I asked you in my former post how you explain why this would NOT be the work of a single killer.

Can I have your answer now, please? It is a much less trivial matter, as I said, and so I am interested to hear your view.

[Fiver]

I’m of the opinion that Lechmere carried cat’s meat on his cart, so the discovery above adds weight to the idea that Sunday was his day off.

Sunday was a normal working day for many, but not, it would seem, for those carrying cat’s meat from LNWR stations.

As a driver for Pickford's Lechemere would have transported a large variety of goods to both individuals and businesses. One period example load included "Chairs, fenders, barrels, looking-glasses, pottery, and an open basket of Welsh mutton, merely covered by an old newspaper."

[Fiver]

When Stride was killed, Lechmereīs mother lived in 1 Maryann Street. One block only separated that address from Berner Street.

Thank you for the information, but that is a very inaccurate description of the distance between Dutfield's Yard, where Stride was killed, and 1 Maryann Street.

From Dutfield's Yard you'd have to walk south on Berner Street, past Fanny Mortimer, who didn't see Lechmere. He would have to walk four blocks south past Fairclough, Boyd, and Everard Streets until he reached Ellen Street. Then walk a block east to Stutfield Street. Then walk another block south to Maryann Street.

Berner Street was not a through street and it angled against him, so it would not be Lechmere's route from his home to 1 Maryann Street. It would be a minimum of a 3 block deviation from Lechemere's route between his home and his mother's residence at 1 Maryann Street.

[rjpalmer]

That is a whole different ballgame when it comes to REALLY hard questions. Having swopped a working day with a mate or having changed schedules, for example, is not exactly earthshattering, is it?

You should try to answer the more important matters before you turn to mere trivialities, R J.

Can you?

How is this a triviality? Perhaps you've moved on, Fish, and have abandoned the earlier claims, but a major plank in the documentary's argument was that Lechmere's work schedule--his comings & goings to work--placed him at the scene of the murders 'at the time they occurred.' Scobie even used the phrase that Lechmere was 'geographically AND physically' linked to the scene of the crimes by this 'coincidence' of timings.

You yourself set the groundwork for this line of reasoning, and this is why critics of the Lechmere theory keep bringing up instances that seem to conflict with this theoretical time table. It's not really very surprising that 'Fiver' does so too, is it? By suggesting that the Chapman murder and the Pinchin Street deposit took place after Lechmere's commute to work?

All I am saying is that one can't have their cake and eat it, too.

If it is now being admitted that Lechemere's work schedule is completely unknown and unknowable, then the documentary obviously made a deeply misleading claim, and no such 'coincidence' of timings exists.

Lechmere has no alibi; on the other hand, his known movements do not in any way implicate him.

Fair enough?

[MrBarnett]

Death certificates aren’t witnessed, Dusty. Do you mean that one of their neighbours was the informant? That’s interesting - do you have a name for the neighbour? And and the address where TC died?

I wonder how many of Maria and Joe Forsdike’s neighbours in Mary Ann Street in 1888 had known her when she was masquerading as Mrs Cross.

The neighbour was Margaret Low(e). She doesn’t appear to have been living in Mary Ann Street in 1881 or 1891.

Although Thomas Cross’s address was 11, Mary Ann Street, he died at 14, MAS.

5 months earlier, CAL’s sister, Emily, had died. Her address was also 11, MAS, but she died at no. 24.

I think it was the same when Joe Forsdike died, he lived at one address in Cable Street but died at another.

That’s an odd little pattern.

[MrBarnett]

>>Who’s Ma C? Is this a new addition to the ‘cast of thousands?’ ;-)<<

Her neighbours would have known her as Tommy Cross's widow. Particularly the one that witnessed his death certificate.

Death certificates aren’t witnessed, Dusty. Do you mean that one of their neighbours was the informant? That’s interesting - do you have a name for the neighbour? And and the address where TC died?

I wonder how many of Maria and Joe Forsdike’s neighbours in Mary Ann Street in 1888 had known her when she was masquerading as Mrs Cross.

[MrBarnett]

Perhaps Fiver doesn't, but one of the main arguments presented in the Lechmere documentary is that the murders coincided with Lechmere's 'shift patterns.'

"his job potentially placed him near four of the killings at the time they occurred" --Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence (42:22)

and, a few moments later...

"the timings really hurt him" -- J. Scobie, QC.

It kind of seems like 'dirty pool' to use a supposed time table to implicate Lechmere in four of the murders, and then deny that there was any such time table when someone uses the same table to suggest an alibi.

Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'm going to assume that Pickford & Co. didn't have rotating shifts--which seems like a safe bet-- and Lechmere left for work at 3.30 a.m. with an arrival time of 4.00 a.m.

Don't the Lechmere theorists themselves accept this?

I was reacting to Fiver’s statement that Lechmere would have been at work when the Pinchin Street torso was deposited. I assume nothing about Lechmere’s working times.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps Fiver doesn't, but one of the main arguments presented in the Lechmere documentary is that the murders coincided with Lechmere's 'shift patterns.'

"his job potentially placed him near four of the killings at the time they occurred" --Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence (42:22)

and, a few moments later...

"the timings really hurt him" -- J. Scobie, QC.

It kind of seems like 'dirty pool' to use a supposed time table to implicate Lechmere in four of the murders, and then deny that there was any such time table when someone uses the same table to suggest an alibi.

Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'm going to assume that Pickford & Co. didn't have rotating shifts--which seems like a safe bet-- and Lechmere left for work at 3.30 a.m. with an arrival time of 4.00 a.m.

Don't the Lechmere theorists themselves accept this?

It really is of little consequence what I "accept" since it will sadly have no impact on the facts in retrospect. I do, however, reason that to my mind, the likely thing is that Lechmereīs normal workday would have him arriving in Broad Street at 4 AM. And that is of course why I say that there seems to be a correlation with the Spitalfields victims just as there seems to be an explanation for the St George/Aldgate murders taking place in other geographical and chronological settings.

What this does not mean, however, is that there is proof that:

1. Lechmere could not have killed Chapman, or that

2. Lechmere could not have dumped the Pinchin Street torso

These are easily overcome matters, whereas it is hard in the extreme to explain why to simultaneously active serial killers in the same geographical area would somehow get it into their respective heads that they need to cut their victims open from ribs to pubes, that they need to extract uteri and hearts from them, that they need to try cutting away their abdominal walls in large sections and that they really should take rings from their victims fingers.

That is a whole different ballgame when it comes to REALLY hard questions. Having swopped a working day with a mate or having changed schedules, for example, is not exactly earthshattering, is it?

You should try to answer the more important matters before you turn to mere trivialities, R J.

Can you?

[Fisherman]

>>Who’s Ma C? Is this a new addition to the ‘cast of thousands?’ ;-)<<

Her neighbours would have known her as Tommy Cross's widow. Particularly the one that witnessed his death certificate.

So nineteen years after Thomas Cross died, you think that Maria Louisa called herself - and was known as - Maria Cross?

I see.

[Fisherman]

Charles Lechmere goes from a red hot suspect to an icy cold one when Annie Chapman is killed while Lechmere was at work and had an alibi. Ditto for the Pinchin Street Torso, he was at work and would have had an alibi.

Even if Chapman was killed at a time that is out of sync with the medical evidence and if Lechmere WAs working at that stage, precisely how does that give him an alibi? Would you care to explain that to us, Fiver?

Of course, you first need to explain to us how you have established that Lechmere was at work on the dumping morning in Pinchin Street.

All in due course!

[Fisherman]

So you start your line with the Pinchin Street Torso, who was not a Ripper victim and who was deposited at a time Charles Lechmere could not have done it since he was at work.

I settled for this sentence only in hýour longish post since I find it is quite enough to point out how your reasoning is very odd. To begin with, it is not established in any shape or form that the Pinchin Street deed was not a Ripper deed. To carry on, how do you know that Lechmere was at work on this particular day?

There can be no certainty at all concerning these matters. What there CAN be a certainty about is that on the day after the Pinchin Street torso was found, a bloody apron was discovered at the building site of St Philips Church. And St Phillips Church is situated exactly on a direct line drawn from Pinchin Street up to 22 Doveton Street, where Charles Lechmere lived. That, and that only is what I am saying - it would be an almighty coincidence if these geographical implications were NOT due to how Lechmere was the killer. There are scores of things beforehand that point to him (unless they are nothing but a tremendous heap of more coincidences) and so the apron at St Philips is either a completely logical matter or a breathtaking coincidence.

You donīt have to like it, but you need to learn to live with it.

[Fisherman]

Yes and yes as should have been obvious from my previous post.

To get from Stride's murder site to 23 Pinchin Street, you have to walk south on Berner Street past Fairclough, Boyd, and Everard Street until you reach Ellen Street. Then you walk west to Philip Street, then south past Maryann and Severne Streets to Pinchin Street and then west to 23 Pinchin Street. That is quite a bit more than the "a lame stoneīs throw away" that you claimed.

At best, Stride was killed a block off of any of Lechmere's most likely routes to his mother's.

Stride was also killed 2 1/2 hours before Lechmere normally left for work. Nobody gets up 2 & 1/2 to 3 hours early on their day off. If he was the killer, he'd also have to explain to his family why a 25 minute walk to his mother's took 2 & 1/2 hours or more.

When Stride was killed, Lechmereīs mother lived in 1 Maryann Street. One block only separated that address from Berner Street.

[Fisherman]

I’m not sure I could quantify it. For factory workers, yes; for barmen, policeman and vicars, no. As for carmen, I couldn’t say. It would presumably depend on what they were carrying/for whom they were carrying it.

I’ve read on several occasions that knacker’s yards didn’t operate on Sundays. The report from the Biggleswade paper suggests that carriers moving goods from Broad Street and Camden didn’t operate on a Sunday and furthermore that Broad Street goods station was not fully manned on that day.

It’s the first piece of evidence I’ve seen to suggest that Sunday might indeed have been CAL’s day off.

You should take a ‘paws’ after this.

Even today, in our secularized western world, the commonest day off for workers is Sunday. Back then, religion would have had a much larger influence, and religion stipulates that Sunday is a day of rest. Just as you say, it is hard to quantify, but I do think we can be very certain that Sunday was the working mans day off, broadly speaking.

In our case, we have a single individual to look at, and so of course his own schedule is what counts before any quantified reasoning. In that vein, thanks for expanding on why you think that Sunday was likely a day off for Lechmere.