Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Harry D]

to do WHAT? Perform surgery? There is zero evidence that the Ripper had any knowledge at all about butchery.

Whoever killed Nichols, Chapman, Stride & Eddowes was a skilled murderer, he knew how to incapacitate his prey and dispatch them quickly and cleanly, and in the case of Chapman & Eddowes eviscerate them without damaging the other internal organs, in the dark, with time against him. The argument that a layman with no such experience such as Crossmere could've pulled it off is laughable. ...Ha!

he was a total nutter, and he would not have been able to kill these victims undetected. Furthermore, most serialists are NOT mentally unhinged, but instead fit to plea. Levy was not.

Levy was not a "total nutter", at least not in 1888. If he was, it wouldn't have taken two years until he was sent to the asylum.

Something has to explain the sudden explosion of violence in the Autumn of 1888, and the reason why it either abruptly stopped or de-escalated (if you want to include McKenzie & Coles). We have an explanation for Levy, he was sent to the madhouse around that time. We have no such justification for Crossmere. He seems to have lived out a fairly mundane life after that. It's a key point, and one which you conveniently overlook, which only serves to expose your theory for the non-starter that it is.

Then it MUST have been Issenschmid. Or Lechmere, who walked the streets EVERY night, walking to his job.

Since you like to cite precedent, how many known serial killers have murdered on their rounds?

was connected to one of the witnesses - how is that damning?

Joseph Levy has been described as 'evasive' and having something to hide. It's possible that the man he saw with Eddowes that night was an acquaintance of his, daresay a relative? That's not proven, obviously, but it's certainly a viable connection to the case.

Then tell him that ANOTHER man was found alone with one of the murder victims, and that we cannot be sure how long time he had spent with theat victim.

Hey, Fisherman. Guess what? It might have escaped your notice, but SOMEONE HAD TO FIND THE BODY.

[FrankO]

And we are meant to believe this was because he was all because he was negligent??

Hi Westbourne Wink,

OK, let’s suppose Mizen was telling the truth at the inquest in that Cross lied to him and didn’t inform him that the woman was dead.

The fact that, at the inquest, Mizen claimed that Cross hadn’t mentioned anything about a murder or suicide supports this. Why did he specifically mention this? Because apparently Mizen would have expected the 2 carmen to tell him something like that had they actually been sent by PC Neil.

So, he must have been surprised when he discovered that the woman’s throat had been cut. One might expect him to have at least wondered why the 2 carmen hadn’t spoken of murder or suicide if they had actually been sent by PC Neil. And perhaps check with Neil (where there’s a will, there’s a way), but he didn’t.

We have no way of knowing when Mizen learned that Neil in fact hadn’t sent the 2 carmen his way, but we do know that he would have had confirmation of this reading the Lloyds Weekly News of Sunday 2 September or even the Morning Advertiser of 3 September, before he went to the inquest, which was resumed at 10 am on that morning. If he learned about this, he didn’t act upon it. Even though, by then, he would have known that Cross lied to him.

And after hearing Cross contradict important parts of his own inquest statement, when Mizen knew for a fact that Cross had lied to him and that this man had been found close by the body by this other carman, he still did nothing.

The way I see it is that there are 2 possible reasons for this. Mizen was either gravely negligent or he just wasn’t sure at all about what Cross had and hadn’t told him exactly. And if he wasn’t sure, then why should we? After all, Mizen was there and we were not.

I hope you can see that things aren’t as straight-forward as one would hope or as some sometimes present them.

All the best,
Frank

[drstrange169]

Hello Westbourne Wink,

"You COULD ignore all these very powerful facts and claim that PC Mizen suddenly turned into the most negligent police officer of all time ... or you could except his word, and he is very clear, that he was lied to.
I know which one I think makes sense."

Or you could read through the old posts on various threads where this has been discussed in much greater detail. Your synopsis leaves out crucial elements that open the argument significantly wider.

Ultimately what "makes sense" is down to the individual.

[GUT]

Hi Westbourne Wink,

OK, let’s suppose Mizen was telling the truth at the inquest in that Cross lied to him and didn’t inform him that the woman was dead.

The fact that, at the inquest, Mizen claimed that Cross hadn’t mentioned anything about a murder or suicide supports this. Why did he specifically mention this? Because apparently Mizen would have expected the 2 carmen to tell him something like that had they actually been sent by PC Neil.

So, he must have been surprised when he discovered that the woman’s throat had been cut. One might expect him to have at least wondered why the 2 carmen hadn’t spoken of murder or suicide if they had actually been sent by PC Neil. And perhaps check with Neil (where there’s a will, there’s a way), but he didn’t.

We have no way of knowing when Mizen learned that Neil in fact hadn’t sent the 2 carmen his way, but we do know that he would have had confirmation of this reading the Lloyds Weekly News of Sunday 2 September or even the Morning Advertiser of 3 September, before he went to the inquest, which was resumed at 10 am on that morning. If he learned about this, he didn’t act upon it. Even though, by then, he would have known that Cross lied to him.

And after hearing Cross contradict important parts of his own inquest statement, when Mizen knew for a fact that Cross had lied to him and that this man had been found close by the body by this other carman, he still did nothing.

The way I see it is that there are 2 possible reasons for this. Mizen was either gravely negligent or he just wasn’t sure at all about what Cross had and hadn’t told him exactly. And if he wasn’t sure, then why should we? After all, Mizen was there and we were not.

I hope you can see that things aren’t as straight-forward as one would hope or as some sometimes present them.

All the best,
Frank

G'day Frank

And some would have us believe that with all that the police didn't even go to Pickfords and Cross' address and make inquiries.

[Steve S]

People lie, or are "Economical with the truth" for all sorts of reasons......My problem with the majority of suspects is....WHY?......If there is a record of violence and/or mental instability, that's fine....Anyone else is just "They could have"..........

[Lechmere]

Rosella
They thought it as the third murder not the first – hence ‘heightened alert’.

Harry D
I agree whoever killed the C5 was a skilled murderer, which is one reason why I think he didn’t start with Nichols but had killed before – and also carried on after.
I don’t think the murders abruptly stopped. A key point you repeatedly overlook.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘rounds’ but Harold Shipman killed on his rounds. As did Beverly Allit.
Someone had to find the body. That someone didn’t have to tell the police a false name. That person didn’t have to bluff his way past a policeman moments after. That person didn’t have to be seen by the body before he had raised the alarm. (Caps lock off)

Frank O
The police rubbished the Lloyds story on the Sunday evening it appeared. Seemingly without double checking with Mizen who was from a different Division.
Mizen’s opportunities to corroborate with Neil what had happened would have been limited by this factor.
Beat policeman are trained to be sure what people tell them and they have notebooks to record things in.

Dr Strange
I am unaware of any facts missed out by Westbourne Wink on the Mizen-Lechmere discourse.
He may have skipped ‘elements’ thrown in by people desperate to believe Lechmere over the exemplary policeman at all costs.

GUT
If you believe the police did go to Pickfords and Lechmere’s home address then you will have to come up with an explanation for your instance in still choosing to call him Cross.

[GUT]

GUT
If you believe the police did go to Pickfords and Lechmere’s home address then you will have to come up with an explanation for your instance in still choosing to call him Cross.

That bits simple because it is the name he chose to use himself and to suggest that Mizen knew he was being less than honest to but the police didn't make inquiries just doesn't work.

[Jon Guy]

you will have to come up with an explanation for your instance in still choosing to call him Cross.

Didn`t the police refer to Charles Ludwig Wetzel as Charles Ludwig, even though it is noted that Abberline knew him as Wetzel ?

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Hello Christer


The scoring and cuts of skin on pubis were caused through the endeavour to pass the obstruction caused by the tight fitting clothing over the abdomen. The clothing was fastened round the body somewhat tightly and only could be raised so as to expose about one-third of the abdomen. MEPO 3/140 ff 263-71

This is PC Andrews, the man who actually found her, answering the coroner at the inquest:


[Coroner] Where [sic] her clothes up? - Yes, almost level to the chin. Her legs and body were exposed. I noticed that blood was running from the left side of the neck.
[Coroner] You said you felt her? - I touched the abdomen. It was quite warm.

The clothes were up - check.
He was able to feel her abdomen for warmth - check.

Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on.Daily Tel 4th Sept 88

The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right."
Daily News 4th Sept 88

Right, Jon - I am now going to ask you to look at what MIZEN said about how he was informed about what was the matter with the woman in the street. Lechmere - for it is him, surprise, surprise - states that he informed Mizen about the severity of the errand, but Mizen only says that the carman said A/That there was a woman lying in Buck´s Row, and B/That the errand was being tended to by another PC, who had requested the carmen to find him a colleague.

There you are - that´s the explanation to why Mizen finished knocking up a person, and why he did not run for Buck´s Row. It is always the reaction to the message we must look upon, for in it, we can find what was told and what was not. If the carman had said :We found a woman lying in Buck´s Row, and I don´t know what´s the matter with herbut I think she could be dead!", then Mizen would have rushed.

When Paul noticed Cross in the middle of the road, that`s when Cross was approaching the body. He certainly wasn`t seen retreating from the body, looking like he was concealing a knife or wiping his hands.

Free fantasies on your behalf, Jon. Paul said in the interview that: "I saw a man standing where the woman was."

Standing - not moving or approaching.

Paul confirms this at the inquest: "...as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road."

Nobody says that he was retreating - although he himself says in two papers "I stepped back", when speaking about Pauls arrival.

No, they `re innocent until proven guilty, or, they remain a witness until facts propel them towards being a suspect.

Wrong - they are suspect until cleared. That does not mean that they are not innocent until proven guilty, but they are suspects nevertheless.

....or maybe not, but you are not allowing for the fact that it was 3.30 in the morning and many people trudging to work in the gloom are not as alert or attentive as you apparently are.

What do you mean I am not allowing for it being 3.30? Of course I "allow" for it, but it does not mean that I automatically accept that Paul was tired! He was late, and I know how I react when I wake up, look at the clock and realize that I am late for work - it snaps me wide awake in two seconds flat. The fact that not everyboy are alert is neither here nor there, since we can´t tell what Paul was about in this respect.
Nice try with "trudging", by the way - but let´s say "hurrying" instead, since that was what Paul was.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer.

"Then it MUST have been Isenschmid."

Ah! One of your rare gems! You finally got it right.

Cheers.
LC

Yes I did - but it has nothing to do with Issy

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Whoever killed Nichols, Chapman, Stride & Eddowes was a skilled murderer, he knew how to incapacitate his prey and dispatch them quickly and cleanly, and in the case of Chapman & Eddowes eviscerate them without damaging the other internal organs, in the dark, with time against him. The argument that a layman with no such experience such as Crossmere could've pulled it off is laughable. ...Ha!

What do you know of Lechmere´s experience? Why would I trust your assessment of the level of skill needed, when contemporary doctors said that it did not take any knowledge at all, not even one of crude butchery?

There is very good reason to believe that Lechmere had a lot of experience of handling meat and knives, but there is little need to accept that the killer MUST have been experienced in these matters.

Levy was not a "total nutter", at least not in 1888. If he was, it wouldn't have taken two years until he was sent to the asylum.

Levy has nothing going for him, full story. There is not a shred of evidence tying him to the Whitechapel killings.

Something has to explain the sudden explosion of violence in the Autumn of 1888, and the reason why it either abruptly stopped or de-escalated (if you want to include McKenzie & Coles). We have an explanation for Levy, he was sent to the madhouse around that time. We have no such justification for Crossmere. He seems to have lived out a fairly mundane life after that. It's a key point, and one which you conveniently overlook, which only serves to expose your theory for the non-starter that it is.

Then Dennis Rader never existed. Then all of the unsolved serial killings - and they are around in huge numbers - have had perpetrators who were uncapacitated to go on killing.
People tell me that I am stupid for thinking that Lechmere would have not stopped after Nichols. They say that he would never go on killing shortly afterwards, for the risk of getting revealed.
They apparently think he could control it by himself, choosing if he was to kill or not.
Then there´s those who say he must have gone on (like you).
Both have it wrong - many serialists have killed in the face of danger of getting caught and close in time to their former victims, and many serialists have either stopped killing or made long pauses.
Some serialists have altered their methods of killing. Some have done so by first employing one method, and then they have switched to another. Some have used varying methods all the time, mixing them up as they go along.
Lechmere may well have continued killing, changing his method.

Once again, ignorance shows itself in the fact that the same people who say that he would have stuck to eviscerating, and who claim that the fact that there are no further evisceration killings tells us that he stopped, are also the people who say that Nichols could not have been the first victim.

Aha - so he killed in another fashion BEFORE, but he could NOT have done so after...? Brilliant.

Since you like to cite precedent, how many known serial killers have murdered on their rounds?

How many have murdered by flying their victims to a remote place, subsequently hunting them down in the wilderness and killing them?
One.

How many have murdered by feigning having a plaster cast on their arm?
One.

How many have murdered by travelling to their victims on warships?
One.

It would be ignorant in the extreme not to acknowledge that serial killers may kill in different manners, employing different tactics and using different windows of opportunity. The perceived drawback of killing en route to work is a drawback designed and fashioned for the simple reason that there is nothing else to go for when it comes to Lechmere.
It´s the same with the "he was a kindly family man" ploy.
It´s the same with the he "couldn´t have switched MO:s" ploy.

Totally disingenuous, all of it.

Joseph Levy has been described as 'evasive' and having something to hide. It's possible that the man he saw with Eddowes that night was an acquaintance of his, daresay a relative? That's not proven, obviously, but it's certainly a viable connection to the case.

No, it´s no connection at all - it is a suggestion, "bolstered" by something thrown forward by a journalist who wanted to sell his paper.

Hey, Fisherman. Guess what? It might have escaped your notice, but SOMEONE HAD TO FIND THE BODY.

But that somebody did not have to find it at time that puts him in the frame as the killer. That somebody had no need to give a false name to the police. That somebody did not have to con the police on the murder night. That somebody did not have to have all the other murders happan along his treks.

So it´s another disingenuous "argument" on your behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fish lech

Whats your take on Lech re the attacks on:

Millwood
ada Wilson
emma smith
Tabram
Mckenzie
coles

Do you think he could be responsible for any and if so, how does their location and timing jibe with lech.


Also, you have said that you suspect that lech might be responsible for the Pinchin st torso. (due to its near his mothers I believe?)

Deb arif has shown that all the torso victims had abdominal mutilations, including Pinchin, which could tie them not only together for a single killer but also to the ripper murders.

Whats your take on the possibility that lech could be responsible for some/all of the torso murders?

--what Im getting at here with the torsos is his/family involvement with the cats meet business and the places of business it was operated from. certainly a viable place as a bolt hole and a place where one could conceiveably murder, mutilate and cut up (to facilitate easy removal from said place)a human body in private.

Where were these cats meats businesses and whats their viability to be used for above ?

[Fisherman]

Hi Westbourne Wink,

OK, let’s suppose Mizen was telling the truth at the inquest in that Cross lied to him and didn’t inform him that the woman was dead.

The fact that, at the inquest, Mizen claimed that Cross hadn’t mentioned anything about a murder or suicide supports this. Why did he specifically mention this? Because apparently Mizen would have expected the 2 carmen to tell him something like that had they actually been sent by PC Neil.

So, he must have been surprised when he discovered that the woman’s throat had been cut. One might expect him to have at least wondered why the 2 carmen hadn’t spoken of murder or suicide if they had actually been sent by PC Neil. And perhaps check with Neil (where there’s a will, there’s a way), but he didn’t.

We have no way of knowing when Mizen learned that Neil in fact hadn’t sent the 2 carmen his way, but we do know that he would have had confirmation of this reading the Lloyds Weekly News of Sunday 2 September or even the Morning Advertiser of 3 September, before he went to the inquest, which was resumed at 10 am on that morning. If he learned about this, he didn’t act upon it. Even though, by then, he would have known that Cross lied to him.

And after hearing Cross contradict important parts of his own inquest statement, when Mizen knew for a fact that Cross had lied to him and that this man had been found close by the body by this other carman, he still did nothing.

The way I see it is that there are 2 possible reasons for this. Mizen was either gravely negligent or he just wasn’t sure at all about what Cross had and hadn’t told him exactly. And if he wasn’t sure, then why should we? After all, Mizen was there and we were not.

I hope you can see that things aren’t as straight-forward as one would hope or as some sometimes present them.

All the best,
Frank

Westbourne Wink has it right, Frank.

Let me walk you through it.

On the first day of the inquest (1:st of September), Neil said that he was the one who found the body, and he did not mention the carmen.

On a "press conference" on the 2:nd, mentioned in the papers of the 3:rd, Neil says - rather irritaded - that it is NOT true that he was shown to the body by two men.
Obviously, these men are Lechmere and Paul, and equally obviously, what has brought about Neil countering the proposition is the interview Paul gave.

In it, Paul said that he directed a PC (Mizen) to Buck´s Row.

It is apparent that the questions put to Neil are lead on by a suspicion that he could have been the PC Paul spoke to - which of course he was not.

So! What Neil says is that he was the sole finder of the body.

Now, take Mizen and his role! Let´s make two assumptions, and let´s play out the credible scenario that would evolve for each assumption!

Assumption 1: The carman lied to Mizen. He said that there was a woman lying in the street in Buck´s Row, but he did not say that it was potentially very serious. He added that there was another PC in place, and that this PC had requested the carmen to go for help.

What would Mizen do if this was the case?

Well, he would not feel pressed for time, since there was already a PC in place in Buck´s Row. He could well knock up the odd customer or two before he walked off for Buck´s Row. Incidentally, we know that this is exactly what happened.
Then, when he saw Neil, he would have reasoned "Ah, there´s the PC the carman spoke of".
Would he ask "Are you the PC the carman spoke of?" No, that would be outright stupid. It was obvious to him that this was so.

When Mizen read about the first inquest day, he would read about Neil talking about how he found the body. He would not be perplexed about Neil taking on that role and not mentioning the two carmen, since they were not of importance to the investigation, and they were not the ones who had found the body - Neil had, and then the carmen had arrived, and Neil had sent them on to him.

It all adds up - if Lechmere lied.

When Mizen read the article from the press conference, it would be much the same: Neil said that it was not true that the two men had shown him to the body, and to Mizen, that was a confirmation of what he already knew: Neil had found the body, and then the carmen arrived.
If the carmen had shown Neil to the body, he would never have let them go and look for Mizen!

It all adds up - if Lechmere lied.

Assumption 1: The carman was honest, and told things as it was.

What would that mean? It would mean that Mizen was told that the woman was perhaps dead or dying, and that the carmen had found the body and left it in Buck´s Row, and nobody else had been involved.

What would Mizen do in such a case?

He would run off immediately to tend to the woman in Buck´s Row, who could be in dire need of attention.

What would he do when he read what Neil said at the inquest? Well, he would immediately realize that Neil had failed to see that he was NOT the first person to find the body - the carmen were. And so Mizen would need to approach his superiors and tell the story as it was.

And if Mizen did not do that on the 1:st, then he would need to do so when he saaw that Neil stuck to his story at the "press conference", claining that he was the first to find the body.

But Mizen never approaches his superiors and tells them that the carmen were the first to find the body!

And why?

Because, of course, Mizen had been told that there was a PC in place in Buck´s Row. And that meant that the story Neil told was in line with the truth, the way Mizen saw things.

Of course, it was NOT the truth, since Mizen had been lied to.

This is how the set of events must be read. It is the only way in which Mizens reactions to what he was told fits.

So, in retrospect, I think it is more or less proven that Mizen told the truth at the inquest, whereas Lechmere lied.

I also think that this goes a very long way to tell us that Charles Lechmere was the man who killed Polly Nichols, and - by extension - the rest of the victims too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

G'day Frank

And some would have us believe that with all that the police didn't even go to Pickfords and Cross' address and make inquiries.

So explain to "some" why the didn´t get his true name.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Didn`t the police refer to Charles Ludwig Wetzel as Charles Ludwig, even though it is noted that Abberline knew him as Wetzel ?

From the Pall Mall Gazette:

"... the German, named Charles Ludwig, alias Wetzel..."

If Wetzel was an alias, then the police had him by his correct name.

The police never had Lechmere by HIS correct name.

The best,
Fisherman