Blood on Charles Lechmere

[MrBarnett]

A typical page from Ingram's book The Story of Pickfords, which is actually a history of their motorised fleet.

[Fisherman]

But Fish, Ingram does not claim to be an expert on Pickfords entire history, only on their motorised transport. His publishers tell us this. Should we disbelieve them?

Is that what the publishers say: "Arthur Ingram is solely an expert on Pickfords motorised transport, and on nothing else"?

Because being an expert on the motorised transports of Pickfords does of course not preclude being an expert on the company as such too.

I remember that this has been up before. What conclusions were drawn that time?

[Fisherman]

A quick look at Ingram shows that he has written many books, a good deal of them on lorries and motorised transport - but there is also a book called "Horse-Drawn Vehicles Since 1760" for example. He has also written about shepherding, dairies and parcel services, I note.

I think it is very hard to establish from this that he is only an expert on the Pickfords trucks.

Of course, once again, this all boils down to the point about being bloodied or not as a Pickfords carman. In all probability, what we are able to find is that meat was handled at Pickfords, and that we canīt know to what extent the carters were subjected to the risk of getting stains on themselves.

I very much doubt that it is all worth it, somehow...

[MrBarnett]

From post 47:

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.

You're the one who claims Ingrams is an expert on Pickford's. Broad Street operation, Fish. There is no evidence of that as far as I can see and my interpretation of the above is that he did a bit of swotting up on Pickford's early years to produce a very brief introduction to the motorised operation.

I can understand why a film company might mistake someone who had written a book called The Story of Pickfords as being an expert on the company's entire history.

Have you read Gerald Turnbull's Traffic and Transport, An Economic History of Pickfords? I'd certainly call Turnbull an expert - on Pickford's economic history. But do I think he would know the precise conditions at Broad Street Station in 1888? I doubt it.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;373455]

You're the one who claims Ingrams is an expert on Pickford's. Broad Street operation, Fish.

Why would I claim that without having the knowledge, Gary? In all fairness, Blink Films were the ones who contacted Ingram, who met him, who interviewed him and who presented him as an expert on Pickfords.
Much as I participated in the docu, I was unaware of Ingrams existence as I did so. I did not write the script, I did not choose the participants. I asked for a seasoned murder investigator with no previous Ripper interest, and I got it.

There is no evidence of that as far as I can see and my interpretation of the above is that he did a bit of swotting up on Pickford's early years to produce a very brief introduction to the motorised operation.

Yes, that is your interpretation of what he did before writing the book. But "delving deeper" and "doing a bit of swotting up" may be very different things. What does your interpretation allow for, Gary? Does it allow for Ingram having read up extensively on Pickfords in the 1880:s out of interest? Can he have done so after writing the book? Are we born experts or do we aquire that status? And how do we prove it - are there certificates?

I can understand why a film company might mistake someone who had written a book called The Story of Pickfords as being an expert on the company's entire history.

I think it would quickly become obvious that he knew nothing about Pickfords of the 1880:s if that was the case, Gary. He comments on that specific area, and I can only work from the presumption that this was because he was familar with it. To what exact degree, I donīt know.
What does he say? He basically says that Pickfords handled meat to a large extent. It seems they did (so he either was a competent guesser or he knew). And he says that there were facilitites to clean up at Pickfords (which I donīt know if it has been confirmed or denied). He said that the meat business is a dirty business and that you will get stained. Not very controversial.
It is Blink who stated that he could come and go with much blood on himself with no questions asked, not Ingram.

I donīt recall the exact phrasings here, so I may be off to some extent. But basically, that is what I think Ingram said.

Have you read Gerald Turnbull's Traffic and Transport, An Economic History of Pickfords? I'd certainly call Turnbull an expert - on Pickford's economic history. But of I think he would know the precise conditions at Broad Street Station in 1888? I doubt it.

Me too - but I donīt exclude the possibility. It seems Turnbull has an interest in Pickfords, and when you do... you see what I mean?

Have I read the book? Of course not. If I had, Blink could have spared the expense of calling in Ingram...

[Sam Flynn]

What does he say? He basically says that Pickfords handled meat to a large extent. It seems they did (so he either was a competent guesser or he knew). And he says that there were facilitites to clean up at Pickfords (which I donīt know if it has been confirmed or denied). He said that the meat business is a dirty business and that you will get stained. Not very controversial.

What is controversial is the belief/implication that one would get the same kind of stains from working in the "meat [delivery] business" as one would in the "meat [slaughtering/butchering] business". You simply do not.

To be absolutely clear:

If one were a slaughterman, one could conceivably disguise the fact that one had a murder-victim's blood upon one's person as a bit of "splash-back" of animal blood at work. A few sploshes of the "proper red stuff" might be expected, gradually drying dark red/brown, visible as dark stains on even moderately dark fabrics.

If one were merely a meat-delivery operative, one could NOT use the same alibi, because there's no splash-back, and precious little "proper" blood to speak of. There would be no "sploshes" of anything, but perhaps - just perhaps - the odd smear of plasma mixed with traces of blood or myoglobin, rapidly drying a pale yellowish-pink, not easy to see except on the lightest (or whitest) cloth.

[Fisherman]

What is controversial is the belief/implication that one would get the same kind of stains from working in the "meat [delivery] business" as one would in the "meat [slaughtering/butchering] business". You simply do not.

To be absolutely clear:

If one were a slaughterman, one could conceivably disguise the fact that one had a murder-victim's blood upon one's person as a bit of "splash-back" of animal blood at work. A few sploshes of the "proper red stuff" might be expected, gradually drying dark red/brown, visible as dark stains on even moderately dark fabrics.

If one were merely a meat-delivery operative, one could NOT use the same alibi, because there's no splash-back, and precious little "proper" blood to speak of. There would be no "sploshes" of anything, but perhaps - just perhaps - the odd smear of plasma mixed with traces of blood or myoglobin, rapidly drying a pale yellowish-pink, not easy to see except on the lightest (or whitest) cloth.

Yes, I know that this is your view, and it is probably correct, Gareth. What I am trying to get across is that we cannot know exactly what Lechmere did, exactly what kind of material he handled etcetera. You have a picture of how the job was done, and that may be the correct picture. But as long as it may also NOT be the correct picture, I am going to reserve my judgment on the affair.
He may or may not have lifted the meat himself, it may or may not have been vert well cleaned, it may or may not have been very fresh etcetera. Thatīs what I am trying to say - a little less dogma, a little more flexible mind.

[caz]

I once knew a man who insisted that a carrot was an apple.

He would walk about all day, holding a carrot, telling anyone at the marketplace who would listen that it was an apple. Most people simply ignored the man.

Some would approach him, see that he was holding a carrot, shake their heads, and walk away without saying a word.

A few would attempt to engage the man. "Sir", they'd say. "You are holding a carrot. That is not an apple." The man would then launch into a seemingly nonsensical diatribe. “This is an apple”, he’d tell them, and only he had the intellect and knowledge required to see that plain, simple truth.

Fewer still tried to actually understand what the man was on about. They heard his arguments and hypotheses. They listened intently as he told them that orange was red and that carrot-shaped was actually apple-shaped. And when they disagreed, they were subjected to a barrage of insults. The man would rant. "What do you know of carrots?" He'd shout. "Or apples for that matter! I have done the research! I’ve thought of nothing but apples and carrots these past thirty years……and I know a green grocer who agrees with me! Me! Not you pathetic, ignorant, insufferable fools!"

Finally, I met the man myself. I heard what he had to say. Now, by nature, I like to debate, to argue, if you will. I also have quite a long attention span and a keen, lifelong interest in apples. Thus, I went home. I read everything I could get my hands on about apples. I read everything I could find about carrots, vegetables and fruits of all types, really. "This chap may be on to something", I thought, as I kept digging. Months went by. I found that I'd compiled stacks of notes. I worked diligently toward my own conclusions. “Could he be right?” I put everything I had on paper. I checked every nuance, each seemingly insignificant detail. And in the end I found, to my shock and surprise, to my abject horror.......that the man was holding a carrot and telling everyone it was an apple.

And now he won't talk to me.

Great story, Patrick.

I feel the carrot holder's pain - almost.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

I've encountered a lot of people on other websites who have been hoodwinked by the Channel 5 documentary. It's a shame how much misinformation becomes disseminated and taken as fact.

[Abby Normal]

I've encountered a lot of people on other websites who have been hoodwinked by the Channel 5 documentary. It's a shame how much misinformation becomes disseminated and taken as fact.

Hi Harry
what "disinformation" was shown in the docu? the only thing I noticed is they portrayed Lech as bending over the body as Paul approached.

what else?

[caz]

In this case, an expert on Pickfords has commented on Pickfords, and what he says is something that seemingly strenghtens the Lechmere theory.

Hi Christer,

If Lechmere had worked for Pickfords for two decades, it would almost certainly have been a happy coincidence if his tasks in 1888 and beyond involved getting bloodstained to the extent that any visible blood he got on his clothing or person from any of his murders (not just Nichols of course) could be explained away. Presumably he'd have turned into a serial killer anyway, even without this handy excuse should he ever have needed to use it. Or do you think he actively sought out a career that would help him in this regard, as many child abusers actively seek jobs in schools, the scout movement, the church and so on?

I suppose what I am getting at is what would he have done about it, if anything, if his job did not happen to involve coming into contact with blood, in any form or at any time; or did not happen to involve walking through an area rich with unfortunates at the right time of night or day to find and attack one, either before clocking on, or during his working hours?

I'm just not sure such things can 'strengthen' the Lechmere theory if they would have applied anyway, regardless of any ambition he may or may not have harboured to disembowel prostitutes. Neither is in any way, shape or form incriminating, and must have applied to hundreds of other men who never hurt the proverbial fly.

I could become a fisherman on the quiet, as I live near enough to the sea these days and eat lots of seafood, so the smell of it would not give me away. [No smirking at the back please! ] But that would just be a coincidence and I'd have to want to become a fisherman and want to think like one.

And I don't.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In all fairness, Blink Films were the ones who contacted Ingram, who met him, who interviewed him and who presented him as an expert on Pickfords.
Much as I participated in the docu, I was unaware of Ingrams existence as I did so. I did not write the script, I did not choose the participants. I asked for a seasoned murder investigator with no previous Ripper interest, and I got it.

You also asked for a seasoned murderer in the shape of Lechmere and you got that too. The question is, did he own a pair of salt and pepper trousers, and could he cut the mustard?

Does it allow for Ingram having read up extensively on Pickfords in the 1880:s out of interest? Can he have done so after writing the book? Are we born experts or do we aquire that status? And how do we prove it - are there certificates?

If an expert can be said to be someone one who has read extensively on a particular subject and retained all the relevant information, can he/she not be asked where they read that Pickfords 'handled meat to a large extent' and provided 'facilities to clean up', while the murders Lechmere is suspected of were taking place? Surely an expert would have made notes about their sources and the intrepid Lechmere theorists would want to know what those sources were and if they are still available to be perused, or have since disappeared, along with the records of Pickfords employees back then?

It is Blink who stated that he could come and go with much blood on himself with no questions asked, not Ingram.

I blinked and missed the 'expert' in that context, Christer.

Have I read the book? Of course not. If I had, Blink could have spared the expense of calling in Ingram...

Well they could have just asked him for his sources... if they still exist.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What is controversial is the belief/implication that one would get the same kind of stains from working in the "meat [delivery] business" as one would in the "meat [slaughtering/butchering] business". You simply do not.

To be absolutely clear:

If one were a slaughterman, one could conceivably disguise the fact that one had a murder-victim's blood upon one's person as a bit of "splash-back" of animal blood at work. A few sploshes of the "proper red stuff" might be expected, gradually drying dark red/brown, visible as dark stains on even moderately dark fabrics.

If one were merely a meat-delivery operative, one could NOT use the same alibi, because there's no splash-back, and precious little "proper" blood to speak of. There would be no "sploshes" of anything, but perhaps - just perhaps - the odd smear of plasma mixed with traces of blood or myoglobin, rapidly drying a pale yellowish-pink, not easy to see except on the lightest (or whitest) cloth.

Hi Gareth,

And of course one does not need to be anything like an expert on the history of Pickfords, called in to talk about meat handling in support of the Lechmere theory, to make such common-sense observations.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz: Hi Christer

Hi Caz!

If Lechmere had worked for Pickfords for two decades, it would almost certainly have been a happy coincidence if his tasks in 1888 and beyond involved getting bloodstained to the extent that any visible blood he got on his clothing or person from any of his murders (not just Nichols of course) could be explained away.

I have no idea why two decades of Pickfords work would result in that. Nine whatsoever, actually.

Presumably he'd have turned into a serial killer anyway, even without this handy excuse should he ever have needed to use it. Or do you think he actively sought out a career that would help him in this regard, as many child abusers actively seek jobs in schools, the scout movement, the church and so on?

Itīs har to say what is hen and what is egg, Caz, but the fact of the matter is that butchery and carving up animal carcasses is a branch of work that oftentimes carries crime with itself. It is academically proven, and many serial killers have at one time or another been involved in the meat business - or so I am told. It is a fascinating area to study.

I suppose what I am getting at is what would he have done about it, if anything, if his job did not happen to involve coming into contact with blood, in any form or at any time; or did not happen to involve walking through an area rich with unfortunates at the right time of night or day to find and attack one, either before clocking on, or during his working hours?

Your guess is good as mine. Or almost. Nah, just kiddinī- itīs normally way worse.

I'm just not sure such things can 'strengthen' the Lechmere theory if they would have applied anyway, regardless of any ambition he may or may not have harboured to disembowel prostitutes. Neither is in any way, shape or form incriminating, and must have applied to hundreds of other men who never hurt the proverbial fly.

If the fraudsters at Blink Films used it, then tyou can bank on it strengthening the theory.

I could become a fisherman on the quiet, as I live near enough to the sea these days and eat lots of seafood, so the smell of it would not give me away. [No smirking at the back please! ] But that would just be a coincidence and I'd have to want to become a fisherman and want to think like one.

You donīt "become" a fisherman. You are born one.

[Fisherman]

Hi Gareth,

And of course one does not need to be anything like an expert on the history of Pickfords, called in to talk about meat handling in support of the Lechmere theory, to make such common-sense observations.

Love,

Caz
X

The next time you put your white dress on to party, Iīd be glad to droio by and rub it with an entrecote, fresh from Tescos. Not to worry, if there is - unexpectedly - some sort of stain, it will ony be a faint beige serum spot.

Noone will see it.