Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[MrBarnett]

Great post MrB
Great point about it being more suspicious that he would be found with a victim OFF his normal route. My previous post was hoping to uncover stuff just like that.

and great comparison between Hutch and Lech and why they were near the victim. I totally agree-INTRINSICALLY (great use of the word) more suspicious is hutchs reason.

Thanks, Abbey.

You have raised some interesting specific questions. It'll be interesting to see what they have to say.

I think in the past Ed has conceded that pick-ups were more plausible on the busier streets, but Fish has doggedly stuck to his idea that the killings all took place within 30 yds of Lech's work routes. Hence the idea of a 'short cut' through Dorset Street. The theory looks good on a map, I suppose. But I don't think it's necessarily any more damning than Hutch being an essentially homeless man whose known temporary residence is slap bang in the epicentre of events.


MrB

[Abby Normal]

Thanks, Abbey.

You have raised some interesting specific questions. It'll be interesting to see what they have to say.

I think in the past Ed has conceded that pick-ups were more plausible on the busier streets, but Fish has doggedly stuck to his idea that the killings all took place within 30 yds of Lech's work routes. Hence the idea of a 'short cut' through Dorset Street. The theory looks good on a map, I suppose. But I don't think it's necessarily any more damning than Hutch being an essentially homeless man whose known temporary residence is slap bang in the epicentre of events.


MrB

Thanks MrB
I agree re hutch living at Victoria house and being at the epicenter.

But to be totally honest to myself-Lech DOES have routes to work and his mothers house that brings him near the murder sites at approx. right times so I give them that.

I just cant get past that a post mortem mutilator serial killer would kill On HIS WAY TO WORK.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Until Fisherman and his cohorts can answer the key points I raised before, their theory has no leg to stand on.

Says you. Let´s see what it´s worth!

Did Crossmere have the anatomical knowledge/skill for the crimes? And saying he must've acquired it because he was Ripper is begging the question.

Oh-oh! The jury is still out on that one, I´m afraid. And it has been since 1888. Most doctors at that time, however, opted for NO skill. You should rad "By accident or by design?", Gareth Williams´ excellent dissertation on Eddowes. It´s very good, although I am not sure what to think myself.

Anyhow, I´m afraid I can´t let your own personal take on things govern how much credence Lechmere can be given in this context.

At the end of the day, we know that the Lechmeres were deeply involved in the cat´s meat business. His som was selling cat´s meat in Broadway market during a period when Lechmere himself had a stand there. There is every chance that he helped out, just as he may well have done on his moters behalf. She was also in the business.

Does Crossmere have any previous form for violence or criminality? In the main, most perpetrators begin with some kind of minor offence and escalate from there. There are always exceptions, of course, but it appears that prior to and after finding Polly Nichols, Crossmere lived an ordinary life with no grounds for suspicion at all.

Useless question, since we cannot answer it. We know that there are serialists that have had no record. There are those who have had no records of violence before. Some are mapped after they have been nailed, and THEN it surfaces that they have done violent things. But noone knew it before.
And in 1888, not all puinches on the nose became court cases. It´s the East end we are talking about - to some extent, it wrote it´s own laws. Many violent acts would have been looked upon as justified straightenings-out.

And, last but by no means least, why did Crossmere stop after the Whitechapel murders? And if he didn't, then link him to subsequent murders.

Just as useless, since it´s just as impossible to answer. There are a number of killings that took place where Lechmere would have been geographically close, or at least had a potential reason to be. For example, there are Pickfords depots that can explain why Lechmere could have been around at a number of killings. Mylett was killed not far from a depot, there was a depot that could explain the Rainham Torso etcetera.
But this was 126 years ago. We should be amazed by how much we can tie Lechmere to, at least to some little extent, instead of craving to have it on record that he was a violent man.
Rader, Gein, Armstrong, Kroll - were THEY known as violent men?

There´s your answer for you.

The best
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fish-perfectly reasonable responses.

If he finds her on Whitechapel road-as you hunch-he obviously takes her to bucks row. which happens to be his normal route to work.

Just happens to be his normal route to work. Pretty lucky that-No?
or is he so cunning he planned that too?

Not being facetious-it just struck me as either really good luck, really REALLY good planning, or both.

We can only speculate. She could have led the way, but equally, HE could have said that he had a really good spot and that if she came along, he´d make it worthwhile to her. All very simple.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I think in the past Ed has conceded that pick-ups were more plausible on the busier streets, but Fish has doggedly stuck to his idea that the killings all took place within 30 yds of Lech's work routes.
MrB

Actually, I have always said that the Buck´s Row murder is more likely to be a case of finding Nichols on Whitechapel Row. But why bother with the truth?

As for the other cases, I have never excluded a pick-up close by instead of on the actual killing street. But I do think that Hanbury Street had it´s prostitutes, as witnessed by Richardson and Long (I see these couples here all the time), I think that Mitre Square was a very common spot for prostitution, but it seems that Eddowes solicited her killer up at Mitre Street, or she had come with him from the church close by, where prostitutuion was rife - something I have suggested numerous times, but why bother with the truth?
I also think that Old Montague Street was a street where prostitution was to be had, but I am not opposed to Tabram being picked up nearby.

And obviously Dorset Street had prostitution on it. Although it led out to Commercial Street with even more prostitution.

If Lechmere had a limited time for his work trek, however, it stands to reason that he would not have travelled far afield.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Thanks MrB
I agree re hutch living at Victoria house and being at the epicenter.

But to be totally honest to myself-Lech DOES have routes to work and his mothers house that brings him near the murder sites at approx. right times so I give them that.

I just cant get past that a post mortem mutilator serial killer would kill On HIS WAY TO WORK.

Believe it or not, I'm one of the famous five who have cast their vote for Lech. My hunch is that Hutch is not our killer, he had other fish to fry.

I can see the neatness of the workday killings being close to his work routes and the coincidence of one of the non-workday killings being close to where his mother lived. But we don't actually know what his work routes were. And if he did kill Stride after visiting his mother and daughter, then he came prepared with a knife and was intending to kill at a much earlier time than normal in the area of the East End where he was most likely to be recognised. He had only recently moved from that part of St George E and had spent most of his life there.

MrB

[Abby Normal]

Harry D: Until Fisherman and his cohorts can answer the key points I raised before, their theory has no leg to stand on.

Says you. Let´s see what it´s worth!

Did Crossmere have the anatomical knowledge/skill for the crimes? And saying he must've acquired it because he was Ripper is begging the question.

Oh-oh! The jury is still out on that one, I´m afraid. And it has been since 1888. Most doctors at that time, however, opted for NO skill. You should rad "By accident or by design?", Gareth Williams´ excellent dissertation on Eddowes. It´s very good, although I am not sure what to think myself.

Anyhow, I´m afraid I can´t let your own personal take on things govern how much credence Lechmere can be given in this context.

At the end of the day, we know that the Lechmeres were deeply involved in the cat´s meat business. His som was selling cat´s meat in Broadway market during a period when Lechmere himself had a stand there. There is every chance that he helped out, just as he may well have done on his moters behalf. She was also in the business.

Does Crossmere have any previous form for violence or criminality? In the main, most perpetrators begin with some kind of minor offence and escalate from there. There are always exceptions, of course, but it appears that prior to and after finding Polly Nichols, Crossmere lived an ordinary life with no grounds for suspicion at all.

Useless question, since we cannot answer it. We know that there are serialists that have had no record. There are those who have had no records of violence before. Some are mapped after they have been nailed, and THEN it surfaces that they have done violent things. But noone knew it before.
And in 1888, not all puinches on the nose became court cases. It´s the East end we are talking about - to some extent, it wrote it´s own laws. Many violent acts would have been looked upon as justified straightenings-out.

And, last but by no means least, why did Crossmere stop after the Whitechapel murders? And if he didn't, then link him to subsequent murders.

Just as useless, since it´s just as impossible to answer. There are a number of killings that took place where Lechmere would have been geographically close, or at least had a potential reason to be. For example, there are Pickfords depots that can explain why Lechmere could have been around at a number of killings. Mylett was killed not far from a depot, there was a depot that could explain the Rainham Torso etcetera.
But this was 126 years ago. We should be amazed by how much we can tie Lechmere to, at least to some little extent, instead of craving to have it on record that he was a violent man.
Rader, Gein, Armstrong, Kroll - were THEY known as violent men?

There´s your answer for you.

The best
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Can you elaborate on this?

At the end of the day, we know that the Lechmeres were deeply involved in the cat´s meat business. His som was selling cat´s meat in Broadway market during a period when Lechmere himself had a stand there. There is every chance that he helped out, just as he may well have done on his moters behalf. She was also in the business.


I knew his mother was in the business, but his son was also? Is this new info?

I think this could be significant, as it could go with Lech having the knife skills and possibly some anatomical knowledge.

[Abby Normal]

Believe it or not, I'm one of the famous five who have cast their vote for Lech. My hunch is that Hutch is not our killer, he had other fish to fry.

I can see the neatness of the workday killings being close to his work routes and the coincidence of one of the non-workday killings being close to where his mother lived. But we don't actually know what his work routes were. And if he did kill Stride after visiting his mother and daughter, then he came prepared with a knife and was intending to kill at a much earlier time than normal in the area of the East End where he was most likely to be recognised. He had only recently moved from that part of St George E and had spent most of his life there.

MrB

Thanks Mr. B

I voted for hutch, but my favorite is actually Blotchy.

I think Hutch is a close second, but in the end was probably just looking for a place to crash and/or wanted to hook up with Mary Kelly, and when that couldn't happen was looking for his 15 minutes of fame and perhaps fortune.

I personally think that All the suspects are weak, including my favorites-just that some are less weak.

[Jon Guy]

Not at all - we have Booths listings, for example, telling us that there were even people who kept servants in the East End, and others were pretty well off. Roughly speaking, people in general were dirt poor, but let´s use a bit nuancing at times, shall we? Otherwise, we´ll end up thinking that no man in an Astrkhan coat could traverse the East End unscathed. It is not true, and it never was.

Yep, I know all that, and don`t worry, I`ll never end up thinking no man in an Astrakhan coat would traverse the East End as I know second hand clothes was big business there, wealthy Jews lived in the area and there were local theatres and music halls bursting full of over dressed actors.

But if so, it was the ONLY occasion where this occurred (he is SUCH an unlucky fellow, Lechmere!). In ALL other occasions, the clothes were thrown away from the abdomen to allow for access.

Alice McKenzie ?

So there is an anomaly to explain here . why would he work with his hands under the clothes in the first place? It would be distinctly awkward, plus it would deny him direct access to see the abdomen and easily feel it. It was the area he really liked, so why would he hide it from himself?

Because he couldn`t lift the dress any further without lifting her bum up.

No, there was no misunderstanding. Mizen did not run because he was never told that it was a serious errand. If Lechmere had said that the woman was dead or dying, THEN Mizen would have run. The answer to the riddle is in Mizen´s reactions.?

Didn`t one of them tell Mizen she was drunk or dead ?

If Phillips was correct - and the police thought he was - the he DID pass Hanbury Street at the murder time, more or less..

If Phillips was correct we need to investigate John Richardson further, not Cross.

No, the killing fields were not a tiny area, it involved hundreds of streets and the two furthest apart killings were divided by around a kilometre as the crow flies. And very few people traversed it at 3.45 in the morning. Plus there was a geographical scattering that ensures that only the fewest had reason to visit all sites...

Hundreds of streets, thousands of people, all in a tiny area.

Who visits their mum on a Sat night ? Especially a 40 year old man ?
Maybe on a Sunday afternoon but on a Sat night ?

The quality of your answers, Jon - really!...

Honestly, you paint a picture of a 40 yr old man who must always use his Sunday best name, who visits his mum on a Sat night...
:-) If only the world was like this.

His daughter lived with his mum, and Saturday night was his only night off. Plus he may have helped out with the cat´s meat business.

No, he could still visit his mum every other night of the week.

Probably didn`t want to chance getting vomit on himself.

There´s desperation for you. He could have lifted her from behind - it would have been the best option anyway.

So you`ve never been in a situation where you have had to assist a comatose drunk in the street ? Vomit is the key word here!!

How did you work this out ?

By walking Doveton Street-Buck´s Row in seven minutes.

Okay, I`ll admit that is proper research !!
But which time did you chose for him to leave home that morning ?

Aha. They can be considered. And THEN they are regarded as coincidences, right?.

Well, everyone makes up their minds, and I can see from the poll that 5 people think him suspicious.

Every person that is found alone by the body of a freshly killed victim must be viewed as a potential suspect. That is all we need to know. After that, what they say and what can be found out governs how to move on.

He was seen approaching the body. Putting him alone by the body would not be correct. Richardson sitting on his step, with a knife, possibly by a body is suspicious and was viewed as so by the authorities

But you didn´t answer my question. Please do..

Sorry, I can`t see what it was now.
What was it, and I will answer.

... and for you to prove him kindly...

Well we have is actions, and a good man he was.

Please show me where I wrote that. ...

I don`t have time to go back through your posts but I will when I find them.

Yes, we`re not all early riser fisherman like you. It was 3.45 in the morning, that`s unnatural man !!

Not to somebody who works that shift. Of course....

Used to do that shift myself, and no matter how much sleep I got, getting up at 3am in the dark is ****, and I was half asleep, even when I was late.

I have a different view, Jon. Maybe you should just accept that.

I do, Christer.

[Abby Normal]

Believe it or not, I'm one of the famous five who have cast their vote for Lech. My hunch is that Hutch is not our killer, he had other fish to fry.

I can see the neatness of the workday killings being close to his work routes and the coincidence of one of the non-workday killings being close to where his mother lived. But we don't actually know what his work routes were. And if he did kill Stride after visiting his mother and daughter, then he came prepared with a knife and was intending to kill at a much earlier time than normal in the area of the East End where he was most likely to be recognised. He had only recently moved from that part of St George E and had spent most of his life there.

MrB

also I think the killing of stride and eddowes (and the apron at Goulston st)actually jibes well with Lech because he was NOT on his way to work, and had the time to pull off the double event. The missing time of the aprons discovery could also be explained if he used his work place or mothers home as a bolt hole. Again the logistics seem to work.

Personally, I don't think being recognized would have deterred him, or any serial killer in those circumstances. To the police and public and friends-Hes just a local bloke out and about on his way home from his mums or at the pub. To the prostitutes it might have actually worked in his favor-if they recognized him, and trusted him.

Come to think of it-it might be why he felt the need to kill stride-even when the whole thing went belly up-because he was afraid she would ID him.

Just thinking out loud here-I keep an open mind.

[MrBarnett]

Actually, I have always said that the Buck´s Row murder is more likely to be a case of finding Nichols on Whitechapel Row. But why bother with the truth?

As for the other cases, I have never excluded a pick-up close by instead of on the actual killing street. But I do think that Hanbury Street had it´s prostitutes, as witnessed by Richardson and Long (I see these couples here all the time), I think that Mitre Square was a very common spot for prostitution, but it seems that Eddowes solicited her killer up at Mitre Street, or she had come with him from the church close by, where prostitutuion was rife - something I have suggested numerous times, but why bother with the truth?
I also think that Old Montague Street was a street where prostitution was to be had, but I am not opposed to Tabram being picked up nearby.

And obviously Dorset Street had prostitution on it. Although it led out to Commercial Street with even more prostitution.

If Lechmere had a limited time for his work trek, however, it stands to reason that he would not have travelled far afield.

The best,
Fisherman

Read my statement again, Fish. Tell me which part isn't true.

I'm sorry, you do cling to your nice neat correlation between the routes and the killings. You are doing it again with your statement about Hanbury Street above. Yes, there is evidence that it was a site where prostitutes occasionally took their clients. But do we know that that was where they solicited them?

I can see why the idea of a neat v-shape of 'probable ' routes surrounded by little red dots might be attractive.

But the main problem is that you do not know what Lech's routes were on any given day. That's the truth. And if we accept that he probably veered off the routes to source his victims, then all we are left with is a general East/West route between Doveton Street and Bishopsgate. A non-specific route between the more residential areas and the main markets, railway termini and the commercial centre of the Empire.

MrB

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Read my statement again, Fish. Tell me which part isn't true.

That will be the part where you falsely claim that I "doggedly" stick to a view where the victims were picked up on the streets where they were killed. That is completely false.

I urge you to find a post where I claim such a thing. Try as you may, it won´t be there.

I have said that the victims MAY all have made contact with the killer on the streets where they were killed, but I have never doggedly claimed that they would or must have.

Martha Tabram was killed a stone´s throw from the intersection Wentworth Street/Commercial Street, and we know that these streets both attracted prostitutes. There was the Princess Alice on the corner that would have provided business earlier in the evenings, and there is every reason to suggest that Tabram was picked up in Wentworth Street, later being found dead 30 yards away from it.

Polly Nichols: I have always said that the best guess is that she was picked up in Whitechapel Road, but the timings allow for her to have had an earlier client and thus she MAY have been in Bucks Row as the killer arrived there.

Annie Chapman: You ask "Yes, there is evidence that it was a site where prostitutes occasionally took their clients. But do we know that that was where they solicited them?"
In answer to that, read what Elizabeth Long discussed with the coroner:
Coroner: - Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking?
Long: - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
Case closed.

Liz Stride: We know where she was for the last hour or so of her life, so there can be little question about where she met her killer.

Catherine Eddowes: She has often been reasoned to have headed for St Botolph´s, since there was prostitution to sell and buy. I have forwarded the suggestion myself. But we must weigh in that she was seen standing at the corner of Church Passage just before she was killed. If she had been approached up at St Botolph´s, then why would the couple make a halt at Church Passage? It makes little sense, and the better suggestion must be that Church passage was where she was picked up.

Mary Kelly: Lived in Dorset Street, where there was prostitution everywhere. She may have been out in Commercial Street, in which case the short cut via Fournier Street/Commercial Street may have sent her right in Lechmere´s way. Otherwise, she may have been approached in Dorset Street. Or she may have been called upon by the killer as she was in her room.

Now listen, and listen carefully: I have NEVER categorically stated that the victims were all approached in the street where they were killed! And I simply won´t have you claiming that I have, as if you knew that better than I do myself!
I do find it deeply significant that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly all fell prey more or less directly on the logical Lechmere routes (and I can absolutely guarantee you that any police force would make the exact same reflection), but it is a false claim to state that I have ever postulated that this was where they were approached too!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon! I won´t waste what little time I have left this evening by answering all points - Malmö FF are due to play Atletico Madrid tonight, and that is more important to somebody born and bred in Malmö. But here´s a few anwers:

Alice McKenzie ?

"Blood flowed from two stabs in the left side of her neck and her skirts had been lifted, revealing blood across her abdomen, which had been mutilated."

Didn`t one of them tell Mizen she was drunk or dead ?

Have a look and see if you can find it, Jon! You may be surprised. If you are wrong, correct your stance accordingly, please!

Hundreds of streets, thousands of people, all in a tiny area.

How long would walking Mitre Square-Buck´s Row take? Something like half an hour?
That´s how "tiny" the area was.
Yeah, I know that people often speak of the area as small, but it was not that small.

Okay, I`ll admit that is proper research !!
But which time did you chose for him to leave home that morning ?

Why would I choose? 3.18? 3.23? 3.26? Useless. There was time, end of story.

He was seen approaching the body.

I would need to see the evidence for that, unless you mean that Paul kept his eyes open as the two crossed the street together.

Sorry, I can`t see what it was now.
What was it, and I will answer.

Do you consider people being found alone nearby murder victims as suspects until otherwise proven?

I don`t have time to go back through your posts but I will when I find them.

Yes. Which is never.

Used to do that shift myself, and no matter how much sleep I got, getting up at 3am in the dark is ****, and I was half asleep, even when I was late.

So that means that Paul must have been the same? Or?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,


Fisherman:

I do find it deeply significant that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly all fell prey more or less directly on the logical Lechmere routes...


MrB:

Fish has doggedly stuck to his idea that the killings all took place within 30 yds of Lech's work routes. Hence the idea of a 'short cut' through Dorset Street. The theory looks good on a map, I suppose. But I don't think it's necessarily any more damning than Hutch being an essentially homeless man whose known temporary residence is slap bang in the epicentre of events.

Doesn't strike me as a gross misrepresentation of your views.

Thanks for the Long statement. Sounds like the pavement outside 29,Hanbury street was heaving. Wonder why he chose such a busy spot?

MrB

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

Fish has doggedly stuck to his idea that the killings all took place within 30 yds of Lech's work routes. Hence the idea of a 'short cut' through Dorset Street. The theory looks good on a map, I suppose. But I don't think it's necessarily any more damning than Hutch being an essentially homeless man whose known temporary residence is slap bang in the epicentre of events.

Doesn't strike me as a gross misrepresentation of your views.

But it is! Whitechapel Road - where I think Nichols may have been picked up - is decidedly not within 30 yards. And I have never said that I think they must have been approached on the streets where they were killed! You have Edward down for one view and me for a "dogged" resistance to the idea that any of the victims could have been picked up in some other place than where they died. And it id dead wrong - Edward and I do not differ materially in any way on this.

Thanks for the Long statement. Sounds like the pavement outside 29,Hanbury street was heaving. Wonder why he chose such a busy spot?

The answer is simple - it wasn´t that busy at 3.30.

The best,
Fisherman