Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[RockySullivan]

Don't forget that apart from one particularly grim Autumn of 1888, the nefarious Ripper that is Crossmere then spent the next 30 odd years of his life without incident.

Someone had to find Nichols body. That someone was Crossmere. The end.

Funny he couldn't stop killing even when caught with a body. So if he was the ripper he didn't stop because police got to close.

[Fisherman]

Well how does Lechmere know kelly? Is he a costermongers? Does she solicit him? If he he doesn't know her how he does he know how to get in thru the window? he just stumble upon her sleeping and he has no idea who or when anybody coming home at anytime.

That is impossible to answer. It could be either way. But the general idea with the Lechmere theory is that he picked up his prey on his way to work.

If he was a frequent user of prostitutes, he could have been in room 13 before, and he could have known his way around.

It´s anybody´s guess.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Funny he couldn't stop killing even when caught with a body. So if he was the ripper he didn't stop because police got to close.

Close - but not too close.

Look at the Green River killer, for example. He knew that he was under suspicion, but that didn´t stop him.

These guys will sometimes enjoy sensing they can do what they want anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Don't forget that apart from one particularly grim Autumn of 1888, the nefarious Ripper that is Crossmere then spent the next 30 odd years of his life without incident.

He did?

So you are saying that I cannot prove that he killed in 1888, but you can prove that he didn´t in 1889-1920?

Great stuff.

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

In my opinion it is most likely that Kelly's killer picked her up on Commercial Street and she took him to Millers Court. There is no need for anyone breaking in via a semi mythological secret window opening trick.

With Lechmere, it he did it, I don't think he started in 1888 or ended in 1888. Indeed I think this is probably the case whoever did it - even Hutchinson! However, unlike the others, Lechmere he can be geographically linked to several other unsolved attacks.

Someone had to find Nichols' body. That someone didn't have to give a name, that so far as we can tell, he never used on any other occasion. That someone didn't have to get embroiled in a dispute with the first policeman he met over who set what to who. That someone needn't have been able to be geographically linked to pretty much all the other murders. That someone need not have delayed coming forward until fingered in a newspaper story. And so on.

[GUT]

The crucial bit about Cross is that you keep saying "a name he never used so far as we can tell", but

1. We will never know if he did use it day to day.

2. It is a name that there is every possibility was at least well associated with him.

And he appears to have given his home and work address.

[Lechmere]

Rocky
If we are to stay on topic and compare Lechmere to Hutchinson then why did Hutchinson stop? As to his proponents he is an international man of mystery, perhaps the case can be made that he died soon after the awful glut at Miller’s Court. Unless he is really Fleming (but let’s not go there).

However I do not think Lechmere started in 1888 nor ended in 1888. He can be geographically linked to a series of unsolved attacks before and after. Incidentally in my opinion it is very unlikely that whoever did it restricted themselves to the well-publicised murders in the Autumn of 1888.

However you have no idea what fears and impulses acted upon the culprit so it is not altogether implausible that he may have continued after a brush with the law in September 1888 (it may even have empowered him), but due to the overall hue and cry decided to desist after November as he felt the heat coming on too much.

GUT
Need I repeat that we have over 100 instances of Lechmere using Lechmere when dealing with any form of authority or officialdom and not one of him using Cross, apart from when he presented himself after he was found standing very close to a dead body.
The balance of evidence overwhelmingly suggests that he never used Cross, particularly when dealing with any form of authority or officialdom.
I would suggest that giving evidence at a murder inquest, particularly one of this nature, would constitute authority and officialdom. Whatever he was known as to his best buddies (which we are never likely to know) is not very relevant.
The determination (seen here) to give him the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances is slightly weird. To say the least.
It appears that Lechmere also avoided giving his home address in open court.
In any case it has to be factored in that the reason he would have given Cross as his name was not to mislead the police but to hide his involvement from his family (or at least certain members of his family) – to keep his slightly distinctive name out of the papers. And he may or may not have been successful (or totally successful) in this endeavour. Yet it is by far the most likely explanation.
This has been repeated umpteen times, yet posters continually return, seemingly nonplussed, at what advantage he may have thought he was gaining by giving a false name, if he was guilty.
One’s family knows one’s habits and temperament more than most. I would suggest he wanted to avoid them putting two and two together.

To stay on topic, it is known that Lechmere have a name other than which he was recorded as using.
Hutchinson? I believe he was almost certainly George ‘Toppy’ Hutchinson, so he did not give a false name.
There are those who believe he was really Joseph Fleming – Mary Kelly’s ex. In which case he did give a false name. But one that would have been prone to discovery as Joseph Fleming was supposedly a local lad. The Joseph Fleming that these advocates propose as their man (besides being recorded as being 6 feet seven inches tall) also lived in the Victoria Home as Joseph Fleming. Hutchinson gave press interviews in the Victoria Home as George Hutchinson and went around the local markets with a police escort. A dangerous mission if he was a local lad called Fleming.

[Westbourne Wink]

Protest too much

For me, and I a pretty new observer, the desperation all over this board by 'old hands' to dismiss Lechmere is a classic sign they're worried because it has got real weight behind it.

The only possible reason for supporting Hutchinson over Lechmere is because you'd rather back a loser because he is less threat to your own pet suspect. That is what this is about - the old guard don't like the fact there is shed load more credible evidence against a suspect that isn't theirs so they try and crowd him out.

It's so transparent from the outside it's embarrassing, it's like low level keyboard warrior bullying. School yard politics extrapolated into a Ripper forum for adults.

I don't know the exact workings of casebook but why has Lechmere not got an entry on the suspects board? There is more real evidence against him than any other candidate.

It's exhausting to hear the same reasons against suspecting Lechmere dragged up (eg. was his false name a real false name?) when they have been categorically answered so many times.

From an objective point of view, having read all the facts, it is VERY clear that Lechmere...

Was with Nichols for longer than he said
Lied to police officer
Lied about his name
Has a clear correlation with all the murders

It can never be said absolutely that he did but there is far more to incriminate him that against many other 'main stream' suspects.

He has to be a prime suspect. End of.

Hutchinson, do me a favour, really?

[Abby Normal]

to me hutch and Lech have a lot of similarities.One of them is that they both voluntarily came forward to the police.

To me that is actually a negative for their candidacy for the ripper, as most serial killers, whether they "insert themselves" in the investigation by other means like writing letters, do NOT take the risk by presenting themselves voluntarily to the police.

Unlike Blotchy, who never came forward.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Was Cross Being Truthful

At the inquest into Nichols’ death, Cross says that first impression he had upon seeing the body was that he thought it was a tarpaulin.

I remember reading several years ago, that one of the main indicators that police and psychologists look for when assessing the truthfulness of a witness, is what their first reaction was when the saw the scene, in this case a body.

Because the witness is looking at something which is totally unexpected, he or she will attempt to rationalise the sighting on the basis of past experience.
In this case, Cross stated that he initially thought that the body of Nichols was in fact a tarpaulin.

This is because a dead body, or even an unconscious person is the very last thing his brain would be expected to process, hence his initial impression that the body was a tarpaulin, or a pile of clothes etc.

I think that his initial statement misinterpreting what he saw is strongly indicative that he was in fact telling the truth.

[Fisherman]

to me hutch and Lech have a lot of similarities.One of them is that they both voluntarily came forward to the police.

To me that is actually a negative for their candidacy for the ripper, as most serial killers, whether they "insert themselves" in the investigation by other means like writing letters, do NOT take the risk by presenting themselves voluntarily to the police.

Unlike Blotchy, who never came forward.

Generally speaking, I agree - most serialists will not voluntarily go to the police.

In Lechmere´s case, however - what choice did he have?

If he did not come forward, then the police would never have gotten his volunteered information that he heard Paul arriving as he stepped out into the street.
They would therefore have been in a position where it would have been perfectly plausible that Lechmere had been alone with the victim for many a minute.
That would immediately have turned him into the prime suspect.

If he had fled, he would have to leave his family behind. And they would have supplied the name to the police, after which the hunt had been on. If he had somehow managed to flee with his entire household, Pickfords would have given the police the name.

He really had very little choice, we KNOW that.

In Hutchinsons case, we know that Lewis did not see much, and left a very vague description. He never needed to go to the police if he was the killer. But he did. And he gave his real name.

These two men don´t compare. And Hutchinson is the odd man out.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

For me, and I a pretty new observer, the desperation all over this board by 'old hands' to dismiss Lechmere is a classic sign they're worried because it has got real weight behind it.

The only possible reason for supporting Hutchinson over Lechmere is because you'd rather back a loser because he is less threat to your own pet suspect. That is what this is about - the old guard don't like the fact there is shed load more credible evidence against a suspect that isn't theirs so they try and crowd him out.

It's so transparent from the outside it's embarrassing, it's like low level keyboard warrior bullying. School yard politics extrapolated into a Ripper forum for adults.

I don't know the exact workings of casebook but why has Lechmere not got an entry on the suspects board? There is more real evidence against him than any other candidate.

It's exhausting to hear the same reasons against suspecting Lechmere dragged up (eg. was his false name a real false name?) when they have been categorically answered so many times.

From an objective point of view, having read all the facts, it is VERY clear that Lechmere...

Was with Nichols for longer than he said
Lied to police officer
Lied about his name
Has a clear correlation with all the murders

It can never be said absolutely that he did but there is far more to incriminate him that against many other 'main stream' suspects.

He has to be a prime suspect. End of.

Hutchinson, do me a favour, really?

Hi WW
welcome. Good post. Its good to see an objective view from a new poster.

I would just say that the real old guard and the experts, also wont touch Hutch with a ten foot pole.

I favor hutch over Lech, but still think lech is viable and commend fish and poster lech on their work-lech is exactly the type of candidate we should be looking into.

I too was a little bummed at how much negativity they got from the "old guard". A little more encouragement along with constructive criticism would have been nice. It would be nice to see some of the experts actually go out on a limb once and a while, and give an honest assessment of viable candidates like hutch, lech, etc.

[John G]

At the inquest into Nichols’ death, Cross says that first impression he had upon seeing the body was that he thought it was a tarpaulin.

I remember reading several years ago, that one of the main indicators that police and psychologists look for when assessing the truthfulness of a witness, is what their first reaction was when the saw the scene, in this case a body.

Because the witness is looking at something which is totally unexpected, he or she will attempt to rationalise the sighting on the basis of past experience.
In this case, Cross stated that he initially thought that the body of Nichols was in fact a tarpaulin.

This is because a dead body, or even an unconscious person is the very last thing his brain would be expected to process, hence his initial impression that the body was a tarpaulin, or a pile of clothes etc.

I think that his initial statement misinterpreting what he saw is strongly indicative that he was in fact telling the truth.

Actually this is a very good point. This accords with Louis D's first impression when looking down on Liz Stride's body- he thought initially that he was looking at a heap of dirt. However, to be fair this was in very poor lighting conditions- on closer inspection he though that the body was his own wife!

[Abby Normal]

Generally speaking, I agree - most serialists will not voluntarily go to the police.

In Lechmere´s case, however - what choice did he have?

If he did not come forward, then the police would never have gotten his volunteered information that he heard Paul arriving as he stepped out into the street.
They would therefore have been in a position where it would have been perfectly plausible that Lechmere had been alone with the victim for many a minute.
That would immediately have turned him into the prime suspect.

If he had fled, he would have to leave his family behind. And they would have supplied the name to the police, after which the hunt had been on. If he had somehow managed to flee with his entire household, Pickfords would have given the police the name.

He really had very little choice, we KNOW that.

In Hutchinsons case, we know that Lewis did not see much, and left a very vague description. He never needed to go to the police if he was the killer. But he did. And he gave his real name.

These two men don´t compare. And Hutchinson is the odd man out.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
I disagree. I think Lech, as well as hutch, could have stayed out of it, and if the police came and found them-could have just said "I did not want to get involved". end of story, no risk, no trouble-happens everyday.

[Fisherman]

At the inquest into Nichols’ death, Cross says that first impression he had upon seeing the body was that he thought it was a tarpaulin.

I remember reading several years ago, that one of the main indicators that police and psychologists look for when assessing the truthfulness of a witness, is what their first reaction was when the saw the scene, in this case a body.

Because the witness is looking at something which is totally unexpected, he or she will attempt to rationalise the sighting on the basis of past experience.
In this case, Cross stated that he initially thought that the body of Nichols was in fact a tarpaulin.

This is because a dead body, or even an unconscious person is the very last thing his brain would be expected to process, hence his initial impression that the body was a tarpaulin, or a pile of clothes etc.

I think that his initial statement misinterpreting what he saw is strongly indicative that he was in fact telling the truth.

I think it is the other way around. If we see a melon with two dots on it, we interpret it as a face. If we see this: , we see a smiling face.
We are very much inclined to read another person into whatever shape or form we are presented with, regardless if it IS a human being or not.
Nervous people with guns in their hands will fire away at moving tree branches, since they think they see an arm in motion.

But that´s just one side of this question, and not the more important one!

You think that he felt it was a tarpaulin. But that predisposes that he was not the killer in the first place.

If he was, he never looked at the shape from the other side of the street, asking himself: I wonder what that is?

Perspectives...!

The best,
Fisherman