Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blood on Charles Lechmere

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    The crimes differ in this respect, though. The killer of Chapman, the killer of Eddowes, the killer of Kelly had his hands inside these victims, cutting and rummaging around.

    Not so with Nichols, as far as we can tell.
    And why didnīt he do that?

    Regards, Pierre

    Comment


    • #47
      I may be wrong, but what I understand from Christer's response above (first point of post 44) is that (a) Arthur Ingrams is an expert on Pickfords' Broad Street activities and that (b) it was his suggestion that Blink films include the clip of butchery to portray the activities at the station.

      Well this is what Ingrams' publishers said about him on the cover of his magnum opus ' The Story of Pickfords':

      "He admits to being primarily interested in the era when Pickfords were a part of the nationalised transport undertaking, the British Transport Commission.* But for this book he had delved deeper into the earlier history of the Company, in order to produce an interesting look at the earlier forms of locomotion."

      The book is 111 pages long and is essentially a picture book of Pickfords trucks. Pages 10 to 20 cover the period from 1650 to 1900, the remainder of the book covers the era of motorised transport which is Ingrams' area of expertise. Of the ten pages covering the pre-motorised operation, roughly six of them are taken up by images.

      Ingrams' 'deep-delving' provided him with sufficient knowledge to describe the broad sweep of Pickfords' first 250 years in four pages of text.

      Of course, it's possible that in doing so he encountered the meat operation at Broad Street in the 1880's and was so fascinated by it that he research it in great depth and discovered that the LNWR employed their own team of butchers at the station who hacked meat into bloody pieces before asking their carman to carry them off to Smithfield market...but that really would be to enter the realms of fantasy.

      I suspect that Ingrams said his piece to camera about there being a meat operation at Broad Street, had a nice ride in a horse and cart and then went and had a well-earned cup of tea. It was the film makers and their other 'experts' who decide to add a bit of blood and gore to spice things up.

      * Post WWII
      Last edited by MrBarnett; 03-09-2016, 04:27 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        The Scotch Meat and Fish express carried (surprise, surprise) meat and fish. Other meat arriving at Broad Street would most likely have come from overseas via the East Coast ports and would have been frozen or preserved in other ways. A certain amount of cats' meat (boiled horse flesh) also arrived at Broad Street.

        The LNWR also had a goods receiving office for general cargo in Primrose Street.

        So not all of the goods at arriving at Broad Street were meat products and those that were were not all freshly-slaughtered and unpackaged.

        Blood transfer on to the clothes of some Broad Street carman is a possibility. But we have no idea whether Lechmere was one of them.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
          I may be wrong, but what I understand from Christer's response above (first point of post 44) is that (a) Arthur Ingrams is an expert on Pickfords' Broad Street activities and that (b) it was his suggestion that Blink films include the clip of butchery to portray the activities at the station.

          Well this is what Ingrams' publishers said about him on the cover of his magnum opus ' The Story of Pickfords':

          "He admits to being primarily interested in the era when Pickfords were a part of the nationalised transport undertaking, the British Transport Commission.* But for this book he had delved deeper into the earlier history of the Company, in order to produce an interesting look at the earlier forms of locomotion."

          The book is 111 pages long and is essentially a picture book of Pickfords trucks. Pages 10 to 20 cover the period from 1650 to 1900, the remainder of the book covers the era of motorised transport which is Ingrams' area of expertise. Of the ten pages covering the pre-motorised operation, roughly six of them are taken up by images.

          Ingrams' 'deep-delving' provided him with sufficient knowledge to describe the broad sweep of Pickfords' first 250 years in four pages of text.

          Of course, it's possible that in doing so he encountered the meat operation at Broad Street in the 1880's and was so fascinated by it that he research it in great depth and discovered that the LNWR employed their own team of butchers at the station who hacked meat into bloody pieces before asking their carman to carry them off to Smithfield market...but that really would be to enter the realms of fantasy.

          I suspect that Ingrams said his piece to camera about there being a meat operation at Broad Street, had a nice ride in a horse and cart and then went and had a well-earned cup of tea. It was the film makers and their other 'experts' who decide to add a bit of blood and gore to spice things up.

          * Post WWII
          Well, Gary, I did neither part of this myself, and so I am not in a position to confirm or deny what you are saying. Basically, I think that we should respect that Ingram is a specialist on Pickfords. Of course, Blink Films would not want to contradict themselves by saying that they did not think that there was a drop of blood insode the Broad Street terminal. But as I say, I really cannot tell you the exact extent of what was said and done.

          If you can prove that Charles Lechmere was not involved in transporting meat in a a capacity that could set itself off in the shape of smears and specks of blood on him, then by all means do so. If you can, that does not materially change the bid that Lechmere was the Whitechapel killer anyway - I was of that opinion long before I even knew that there was an Arthur Ingram. But it would be nice to establish the matter with some exactitude, if you can do that.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
            Blood transfer on to the clothes of some Broad Street carman is a possibility. But we have no idea whether Lechmere was one of them.
            Thatīs more or less how I look upon it too. There is no way we can decide either way. I donīt exclude that blood soiling was a common trait for the carters, just as I donīt exclude that it was uncommon.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Pierre View Post
              And why didnīt he do that?

              Regards, Pierre
              The point is that there is no reason to think that he did, since there were no organs missing. You can cut a body open without outting your hands inside it, but you cannot take out a heart, a uterus, a kidney or any other organ without doing so. Its all very simple.

              Comment


              • #52
                if we are to believe Cross was 'jack' we know he didn't run when Paul approached on that august morning,but went to Paul to chat about the body lying in the street.How do the Cross is jack 'people' explain why he ran on the night of the double event?Or are they in the corner that Stride was not a ripper/cross victim?

                Comment


                • #53
                  I think we should respect what Ingrams himself told his publishers , 'I am an expert on Pickfords motorised fleet,but I will delve sufficiently deeply into their earlier history to provide a very short introduction to my book.' (Or words to that effect.)

                  Incidentally he only reaches the 1880s on the last page of the chapter and he mentions nothing whatever about Broad Street or meat cartage.

                  Ingrams doesn't provide us with a bibliography (it's not that kind of book, it's a picture book for lorry enthusiasts) but if he had, I'm sure he would have mentioned Gerald Turnbull's much more comprehensive Traffic and Transport which does (briefly) mention Pickfords meat operation at Broad Street. Beyond (no doubt) having access to Turnbull's more scholarly work (plenty of charts and graphs but no pictures) I see no evidence that Ingrams was the Pickfords expert he is made out to be.
                  Last edited by MrBarnett; 03-09-2016, 05:18 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I can't recall if I've posted this before. It mentions stables connected with Broad Street Station at Primrose Street. It may not be significant, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that this is where Lechmere headed each morning.

                    I've tried looking for the man who apparently died there, but without success.


                    You can see here a fragment of the upper level where the tracks would have been. The passenger part beyond was at that level too. This is looking south east.
                    Last edited by MrBarnett; 03-09-2016, 05:14 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Thatīs more or less how I look upon it too. There is no way we can decide either way. I donīt exclude that blood soiling was a common trait for the carters, just as I donīt exclude that it was uncommon.
                      That may be how you look at it, Fish, but this is how you present it to the world:

                      And even if there was, this was a carman working for a goods depot that freighted meat on an everyday basis. Realistically, each and every one of the carmen had some blood on their clothes.
                      Last edited by MrBarnett; 03-09-2016, 05:22 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by dixon9 View Post
                        if we are to believe Cross was 'jack' we know he didn't run when Paul approached on that august morning,but went to Paul to chat about the body lying in the street.How do the Cross is jack 'people' explain why he ran on the night of the double event?Or are they in the corner that Stride was not a ripper/cross victim?
                        A point that's been made time and again, but one worth making, again and again. The answer is simple, of course: "Fisherman" (I used to add "et al" here but these days, it seems to be just "Fisherman", the "et al" having abandoned him for more reasonable "suspects....like Vincent Van Gough and Lewis Carroll) has Lechmere behave and react however he is REQUIRED to behave and react in order to have been Jack the Ripper (and myriad other serial killers operating in and around London over some 4+ decades).

                        Paul tells us that Lechmere didn't run. He approached him, touched his shoulder, asked him to come see. Since we know this is what Lechmere actually did, well, then that's what Jack the Ripper did. And Jack did this because he HAD TO! He had no other choice. Even though any thinking person can list literally twenty other more plausible, reasonable, PREFERABLE choices that man wishing to avoid capture and execution would take. Ah, yes! And since we know that Jack hightailed it out of Mitre Square then, well, that's what Lechmere did, even though it's not consistent with his reaction in the Buck's Row even though is "escape" out of Buck's Row was incredibly simple (i.e. simply WALK AWAY in the dark).

                        We are continually presented with convoluted reasoning that explains unreasonable behavior. Of course, Lechmere's behavior is only unreasonable if he had killed Nichols. If he were simply a passerby who found her body, well, his behavior is completely reasonable, isn't it? So, Christer asks us to choose between reasonable behavior by an innocent man, or unreasonable behavior by a lifelong serial killer? Bear in mind also that it doesn't end there! We are required also to believe that he was a PSYCHOPATH as well! As Christer has stated, for Lechmere to have been Jack the Ripper he HAD to have been a psychopath. Thus, we add that ingredient to this noxious brew. No criminal record. 50 year marriage. 10 children. Stable employment. Financially upwardly mobile. No evidence of violent behavior. Psychopath. 40 years a serial killer. Jack the Ripper.

                        Now, I know it doesn't make a lick of sense to us. Alas, if you review "Fisherman's" posts on this thread alone, you'll find its simply because we lack the intellect to process this brilliant piece of detective work.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                          A point that's been made time and again, but one worth making, again and again. The answer is simple, of course: "Fisherman" (I used to add "et al" here but these days, it seems to be just "Fisherman", the "et al" having abandoned him for more reasonable "suspects....like Vincent Van Gough and Lewis Carroll) has Lechmere behave and react however he is REQUIRED to behave and react in order to have been Jack the Ripper (and myriad other serial killers operating in and around London over some 4+ decades).

                          Paul tells us that Lechmere didn't run. He approached him, touched his shoulder, asked him to come see. Since we know this is what Lechmere actually did, well, then that's what Jack the Ripper did. And Jack did this because he HAD TO! He had no other choice. Even though any thinking person can list literally twenty other more plausible, reasonable, PREFERABLE choices that man wishing to avoid capture and execution would take. Ah, yes! And since we know that Jack hightailed it out of Mitre Square then, well, that's what Lechmere did, even though it's not consistent with his reaction in the Buck's Row even though is "escape" out of Buck's Row was incredibly simple (i.e. simply WALK AWAY in the dark).

                          We are continually presented with convoluted reasoning that explains unreasonable behavior. Of course, Lechmere's behavior is only unreasonable if he had killed Nichols. If he were simply a passerby who found her body, well, his behavior is completely reasonable, isn't it? So, Christer asks us to choose between reasonable behavior by an innocent man, or unreasonable behavior by a lifelong serial killer? Bear in mind also that it doesn't end there! We are required also to believe that he was a PSYCHOPATH as well! As Christer has stated, for Lechmere to have been Jack the Ripper he HAD to have been a psychopath. Thus, we add that ingredient to this noxious brew. No criminal record. 50 year marriage. 10 children. Stable employment. Financially upwardly mobile. No evidence of violent behavior. Psychopath. 40 years a serial killer. Jack the Ripper.

                          Now, I know it doesn't make a lick of sense to us. Alas, if you review "Fisherman's" posts on this thread alone, you'll find its simply because we lack the intellect to process this brilliant piece of detective work.
                          Hi,

                          I agree with you. But the main problem is that there are no indications of Lechmere having been present at any other murder site.

                          For us to be able to direct suspicion towards any person and draw the conclusion he is a killer called Jack the Ripper, there is a list of criteria that must be met, taking into account that the subject of study here is a variety of historical sources.

                          We do not have any possibility to do anything else than to analyse primary sources. This means:

                          1. We must prove that the killer was in London at the time of the murders.

                          2. We must have indications of the killer being at more than one single murder site. The more murder sites we can connect to him (an not the other way around!), the more reliability.

                          3. We must prove that the killer had some problem. It must not be "lunacy" but it should be a problem which indicates he had at least one motive for killing anyone at all.

                          4. We must have indications that his motive was connected to killing unfortunates/prostitutes/destitute women in Spitalfields.

                          5. There must be proof and underlying good explanations for why:

                          a) he killed in Spitalfields/the Minories
                          b) he murdered on certain dates
                          c) he used the methods he used
                          d) the murders stopped

                          6. We must prove that he communicated with the police and/or the papers.

                          7. Historical questions about Jack the Ripper must be solved by the material we have.

                          8. We must have proof for the question as to why he used the name Jack the Ripper, if we think he did.

                          Proof is any source that is connected to the killer and could be well argued for in terms of reliability and validity.

                          The more sources of this character, the higher plausibility.

                          The connection of the sources to the killer should be personal, so that we can understand that no one but the killer could be connected to the sources. They should be exclusive.

                          The biggest problem with all this is the reliability and validity of the sources. This is a common problem within science and this is what we have.

                          Trying to convince people that a person who has been at one single murder site and had no motive for killing is not an acceptable method.

                          And especially since there are no original inquest papers left for the murder on Polly Nichols.

                          Kind regards, Pierre
                          Last edited by Pierre; 03-09-2016, 06:53 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            thank you patrick for wording it better than me,as you can see i am not the most articulate(sp?) but i do love studying the case,like the rest on here


                            i knew i should have sat at the front of the class in english,instead of reading the sporting life

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                              A point that's been made time and again, but one worth making, again and again. The answer is simple, of course: "Fisherman" (I used to add "et al" here but these days, it seems to be just "Fisherman", the "et al" having abandoned him for more reasonable "suspects....like Vincent Van Gough and Lewis Carroll) has Lechmere behave and react however he is REQUIRED to behave and react in order to have been Jack the Ripper (and myriad other serial killers operating in and around London over some 4+ decades).

                              Paul tells us that Lechmere didn't run. He approached him, touched his shoulder, asked him to come see. Since we know this is what Lechmere actually did, well, then that's what Jack the Ripper did. And Jack did this because he HAD TO! He had no other choice. Even though any thinking person can list literally twenty other more plausible, reasonable, PREFERABLE choices that man wishing to avoid capture and execution would take. Ah, yes! And since we know that Jack hightailed it out of Mitre Square then, well, that's what Lechmere did, even though it's not consistent with his reaction in the Buck's Row even though is "escape" out of Buck's Row was incredibly simple (i.e. simply WALK AWAY in the dark).

                              We are continually presented with convoluted reasoning that explains unreasonable behavior. Of course, Lechmere's behavior is only unreasonable if he had killed Nichols. If he were simply a passerby who found her body, well, his behavior is completely reasonable, isn't it? So, Christer asks us to choose between reasonable behavior by an innocent man, or unreasonable behavior by a lifelong serial killer? Bear in mind also that it doesn't end there! We are required also to believe that he was a PSYCHOPATH as well! As Christer has stated, for Lechmere to have been Jack the Ripper he HAD to have been a psychopath. Thus, we add that ingredient to this noxious brew. No criminal record. 50 year marriage. 10 children. Stable employment. Financially upwardly mobile. No evidence of violent behavior. Psychopath. 40 years a serial killer. Jack the Ripper.

                              Now, I know it doesn't make a lick of sense to us. Alas, if you review "Fisherman's" posts on this thread alone, you'll find its simply because we lack the intellect to process this brilliant piece of detective work.
                              Great post.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by dixon9 View Post
                                if we are to believe Cross was 'jack' we know he didn't run when Paul approached on that august morning,but went to Paul to chat about the body lying in the street.How do the Cross is jack 'people' explain why he ran on the night of the double event?Or are they in the corner that Stride was not a ripper/cross victim?
                                Regardless of which post-Nichols victim we speak of, it would be quit revealing if Charles Lechmere stayed put and tried to bluff his way out one more time, Dixon.
                                It can be done one time only, which you may appreciate.
                                Last edited by Fisherman; 03-09-2016, 07:24 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X