Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Harry D]

Yes, when you firmly state that Lechmere was not active as a killer before and after 1888, you have made a stement that requires bolstering. It would of course be comfy for you if this did not apply, but it does.

There's no evidence linking Crossmere to post-Ripper murders. You want us to believe that he was the Ripper, then show us some evidence that he continued murdering, because otherwise that leaves us with the conclusion that after 1888(-1891?) he simply hung up his apron and went back to an ordinary life, when serial killers generally don't stop unless they're imprisoned or dead.

I am after the truth, and not after having you believe anything at all.

For a truth-seeker, you sure have a funny way of showing it.

[GUT]

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.

G'day Fisherman

Have you ever looked a modern police files, they are chock a block with "Also known as" even when the person in question has no criminal records and is a witness not a suspect. And you will often get a person today wityh three aliases shown and six months earlier he only had 1.

Interesting that you say if Hutch was Flem then he was prone to discovery, but you don't think that the same applies to Cross = Lechmere.

For the police not to know he was the same man when he gave hs work place and home address requires the police to be total idiots, and that I just don't buy.

[Fisherman]

Harry D:

There's no evidence linking Crossmere to post-Ripper murders.

Harry, have you by chance noticed that there is no firm evidence linking anybody to any of the Ripper killings? Or have you missed out on that?

There IS however circumstantial evidence linking Lechmere to all of the canonical killings as well as the Tabram murder. Likewise, the Pinchin Street torso can be geographically linked to Lechmere, plus there are other killings that took place along routes that he may have travelled. The Broad Street depot was not the only depot, and reasonably, he may have had reason to visit other depots too, depots that have in some cases been situated close to where murders occurred.

Lechmere is unique in this geographical respect, like it or not. All of the rest of the suspects have it in common that they cannot be linked to a single murder in this way, with very few exceptions (like George Hutchinson). Tumblety, Kosminski, Druitt - they cannot be placed at a single murder spot and there is zero tangible evidence against them. They are ideological suspects, if you will, whereas Lechmere is a purely practical one.

So! Let´s not start asking things from people when we know that it is not there. It is disingenious, improductive and a total waste of time.

You want us to believe that he was the Ripper, then show us some evidence that he continued murdering, because otherwise that leaves us with the conclusion that after 1888(-1891?) he simply hung up his apron and went back to an ordinary life, when serial killers generally don't stop unless they're imprisoned or dead.

Once again, I actually don´t want you to believe anything at all.

There is ongoing work on the issue as such, but it is nothing that I am going to discuss at this stage. If you want to believe that no serialist can stop, then I suggest that you ponder the fact that heaps of them have gone undetected. If you think that equals that they all died or were incarcerated - fine. Otherwise, you may want to take a look at a guy like Rader.

Personally, I don´t think that we necessarily need to compare to Rader, since I believe Lechmere carried on killing, just as I believe he started out killing significantly earlier than 1888.

If I had been important to me what you believe, then I would perhaps list a few murders to make my point. However, just as I said earlier, my aim is not to please you or keep you informed.

For a truth-seeker, you sure have a funny way of showing it.

You know, I could say the same for you - provided that you are interested in the truth.
It is not for me to say.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

GUT: G'day Fisherman

Have you ever looked a modern police files, they are chock a block with "Also known as" even when the person in question has no criminal records and is a witness not a suspect.

Yes, I have looked at modern police files. And no, the ones I looked at were not chock a block with "also known as". There were such examples, but they were not very common.

What we can learn from the examples that were there, is that the police lists BOTH names when an alias is around. And we may ponder that the use of aliases is predominantly one that occurs in criminal circles.

Interesting that you say if Hutch was Flem then he was prone to discovery, but you don't think that the same applies to Cross = Lechmere.

Aha? Well, I think it is equally interesting that you claim that I said that, considering that it was Edward who did so.

Not that I don´t agree, but I still think it´s something you need to discuss with him, not me.

For the police not to know he was the same man when he gave hs work place and home address requires the police to be total idiots, and that I just don't buy.

The police list aliases when they know them. You just pointed this out to me.
Apparently, they did not know any other name for the carman than Cross, otherwise they would have listed it as an alias for Lechmere.

I don´t know what you mean when you write that he was the police would have known that he was the same man. They never had two men listed, they had just the one. Why would they go "he is the same as Lechmere!" when they didn´t have the name?

Or are you suggesting that they knew his real name, but used his alias in their reports? And that they supressed their knowledge of an existing alias?

the best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

Harry, have you by chance noticed that there is no firm evidence linking anybody to any of the Ripper killings? Or have you missed out on that?

There's enough circumstantial evidence to make Crossmere a better suspect than some of the names out there, but that's more of a damning indictment against those particular suspects rather than a testament to Crossmere's legitimacy.

It would be one thing if you said that Crossmere was a person of interest to the case. But no, you're not 'searching for the truth' here, you're doing what most armchair detectives do and presenting your own pet theory as fact. You're the one making bold assertions, that the police "probably would've charged Crossmere" had they investigated him as suspect. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, other than an interpretation of his behavior in Buck's Row and the fact that his work route took him past some of the haunts.

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

Interesting that you say if Hutch was Flem then he was prone to discovery, but you don't think that the same applies to Cross = Lechmere.

Aha? Well, I think it is equally interesting that you claim that I said that, considering that it was Edward who did so.

Not that I don´t agree, but I still think it´s something you need to discuss with him, not me.

Sorry about that. somehow I managed to quote Ed but address you, I do apologize to you both.

But you Lechites do all look the same.

[MrBarnett]

G'day Fisherman






Sorry about that. somehow I managed to quote Ed but address you, I do apologize to you both.

But you Lechites do all look the same.

Gut,

Just remember, Lechmere is the name used in the official records, Fisherman is a non de plume used with mates on Casebook.

MrB

[GUT]

Gut,

Just remember, Lechmere is the only name used in the official records, Fisherman is a non de plume used with mates on Casebook.

MrB

Uh huh, that's where I got confused.

[Lechmere]

GUT
Even though my compadre has answered your reply to my post which you addressed to him… I will add another twopennyworth.

However many aliases different people may have is totally irrelevant.
We know the Lechmere called himself Lechmere in every instance where he recorded his name. In a wide variety of different types of records that add up to over 100. Suddenly calling himself Cross when involved in a murder case is a glaring anomaly. It is only among obtuse 'Ripperologists' that there is a refusal to accept this.
In the extant police files, which as you point out invariably record aliases, he is only referred to as Cross. As late as 19th October 1888 (from memory).

The evidence we have all lies on the side of suggesting he wished to hide is true name – for whatever reason – and the police remained unaware of it.

Does this make the police total idiots?
I wouldn’t go that far but I certainly think they made a mistake in not giving due attention to Lechmere.
Is this unusual?
Take a look at how many more contemporary crimes unfold and the errors made at the outset. It is not unusual unfortunately.

But what of this?
'Interesting that you say if Hutch was Flem then he was prone to discovery, but you don't think that the same applies to Cross = Lechmere.'

Examine the two cases.

A Joseph Fleming lived at the Victoria Home as Fleming.
Then, supposedly, he called himself Hutchinson, was interrogated by Abberline and became a minor local celebrity giving press interviews as Hutchinson in the Victoria Home.
Meanwhile stories were in circulation about Kelly’s ex who was also called Fleming, and who was presumably being looked for by the police at the time (if they did not locate him).
Hutchinson also went walkabout with various policemen around the markets looking for his suspect.
Being a local, he could have been seen and approached by an acquaintance while in the company of the policeman, and while pretending he was Hutchinson. A potentially ticklish situation.
Later this Fleming was committed to an insane asylum while living at the Victoria Home. His name was initially given as Evans but his true identity, as Fleming, was soon afterwards established.

Where are the points of comparison with Lechmere?
We have no accounts of any special police interest in Lechmere’s story. There was no press interest in his story either.
He turned up in an inquest, where there were unlikely to be any lay members of the public present, gave his testimony and disappeared.
That is why Lechmere was not prone to discovery.

I hope you can see that Lechmere’s behaviour was totally different to Hutchinson’s and that their different behaviours made the likelihood of any alias being discovered quite different between the two of them.

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

It's obvious that the police could have discovered Lech's true identity if they had tried to do so. In fact he gave it to them, all but his surname.

But if Hutchinson was not in fact Hutchinson, what did they have? No workplace, no fixed abode and potential familial confirmation. Just a name and confirmation that he had spent a few nights at the Victoria Home.

From the official records of the case we have been able to discover exactly who Charles Cross was.

Can we be so sure about the man who called himself George Hutchinson?

MrB

[drstrange169]

Hello Westbourne Wink,

"... No one else mistook her for a tarpaulin, it was clear to everyone else it was a woman lying on her back."

Just out of curiosity, who would you class as "no one else"?
Paul didn't see the body until it was pointed out and PC Neil had a bullseye lantern AND approached the body from the opposite angle to Crossmere. Everyone else arrived expecting a body or at the very least a police problem.


"And if he thought it was a tarpaulin why did he go over to start inspecting it?"

Because he was a carman, why is that odd or unusual?

It's part of his trade. Broad Street where he worked had a shed dedicated to storing tarpaulins. Actually, his thinking it might be a tarp, would have added credence to his story not detracted from it.

When trying to understand the past you have to try and see things as they did back then.

Whether he was telling the truth or not is another matter that has been discussed ad infinitum, but the tarp story was entirely plausible in itself.

[Rosella]

I agree. He might have wanted a tarpaulin for his own use as well, distinct from his work, or perhaps for a friend or family member. You see people nowadays taking things that have been thrown out or put out for rubbish collection. Why not Cross/Lechmere?

[GUT]

I agree. He might have wanted a tarpaulin for his own use as well, distinct from his work, or perhaps for a friend or family member. You see people nowadays taking things that have been thrown out or put out for rubbish collection. Why not Cross/Lechmere?

Or perhaps to sell.

[GUT]

I wonder if anyone today would pawn their shoes?

So why can't we accept that Cross would jump on a tarp that he could get a couple of bob, at least, for.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: There's enough circumstantial evidence to make Crossmere a better suspect than some of the names out there, but that's more of a damning indictment against those particular suspects rather than a testament to Crossmere's legitimacy.

The circumstantial evidence does not make Lechmere a better suspect than some of the names out here - it makes him a better suspect than ANY of the names out here.

It would be one thing if you said that Crossmere was a person of interest to the case.

Well, he IS a person of interest, as he is a very good suspect.

But no, you're not 'searching for the truth' here, you're doing what most armchair detectives do and presenting your own pet theory as fact.

Wait a minute - to search for the truth does not necessarily mean that we have pet suspects. We can search for the truth without a suspect. The two are not in any way interconnected.
Plus, you may have a favourite suspect and search for the truth. SO the two are not mutually exclusive either.

You are welcome to produce any statement of mine where I claim it is a fact that he was the killer, by the way. Just so we can see that you are not making false claims, I mean.

You're the one making bold assertions, that the police "probably would've charged Crossmere" had they investigated him as suspect.

That´s not a very bold claim. History is full of people who have been charged with murder on less evidence than there is for Lechmere.

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, other than an interpretation of his behavior in Buck's Row and the fact that his work route took him past some of the haunts.

That is absolutely true. But surely you have noticed that there IS more circumstantial evidence? You should read post 113 on this thread.

The best,
Fisherman