Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

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 ?

I won´t go into this very much, Abby - clearly, Lechmere COULD be responsible for all the attacks, though some are likelier than others.

The cat´s meat business his mother ran could well have been run out of her home, but it is not established, as far as I know.

As an aside, there are other facts too, placing Lechmere in close contact with meat, knives and butchery.

His son ran his cats meat business from Broadway market, but that´s later on.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

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

Yes, it`s in the papers, but he`s not referred to as Wetzel in the police reports, although they obviously knew that was his full name

[Abby Normal]

I won´t go into this very much, Abby - clearly, Lechmere COULD be responsible for all the attacks, though some are likelier than others.

The cat´s meat business his mother ran could well have been run out of her home, but it is not established, as far as I know.

As an aside, there are other facts too, placing Lechmere in close contact with meat, knives and butchery.

His son ran his cats meat business from Broadway market, but that´s later on.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Bummer! I was hoping you would get into this a little more.

Are you saving it for the book? ; )

You and lech are writing a book right?
(im actually serious about this-and if you are im telling you now I would buy it)

[Westbourne Wink]

Well this is refreshing! I didn't realise that there is now a school of thought that accepts Lechmere lied to Mizen BUT... wait for it...

There was a perfectly innocent explanation for misleading a police officer about the situation with a dead woman.

Of course - that's a much more reasonable conclusion than that he was lying for a not so innocent reason! We are working hard to refute all allegations against Lechmere. It's almost like you'll do anything to deny it.

There is no logic to saying it was an 'innocent' lie. None. Everything that proceeds Lechmere's meeting with Mizen doesn't fit with it, that's very obvious.
And frankly, you don't innocently lie about a death to a policeman.

In terms of this idea that if PC Mizen was telling the truth then it would have been impossible for Lechmere to get away with standing by his lie at the inquest. I don't agree.

PC Mizen took the stand first - which was to Lechmere's advantage (who slopes in wearing his work clothes whilst he is giving his evidence). Mizen, being a serving police officer, would have been required to get back on his beat once he'd given his statement.

Anyway, whether he was there or not, a juryman is clearly troubled enough by it to question Lechmere about it. But it's very important to remember an inquest is not a trial and witnesses are not allowed to questioned like suspects.

Besides Lechmere got an 'easy ride' back then because of the same mistakes you're all making now. He's carman, an ordinary guy, just happened to the find the body bla bla bla. You seem to think that if he was guilty it would have been so obvious the police at the time would have definitely spotted it - but the Ripper was not caught, he was not obvious, he was veyr adept at not getting caught.

The police back then, like you, are looking for someone who 'looks like' a murderer. And in doing so, just like them, you are missing the highly suspect character right under your noses.

[Harry D]

What do you know of Lechmere´s experience?

What do you? There's no evidence that Lechmere had the necessary knowledge for the mutilations, therefore why should anyone of us jump to the conclusion that he did?

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?

George Bagster Phillips believed the killer possessed anatomical skill? To cleanly eviscerate Chapman within ten minutes, in those conditions, was indubitably the mark of a skilled hand. Not some carman fumbling in the dark. :P

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

Apart from means, motive and opportunity, that is.

What links Crossmere to the murders? Oh, he found the first body. Big whoop. Someone had to. Oh, and he gave an alias that in no way helped shield his identity as he was still called to inquest. If Crossmere was this evil genius that you purport him to be, why wouldn't he give a completely bogus name rather than just his real name but with his stepfather's surname swapped in?

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.

Then Richard Chase never existed, then Son of Sam never existed. Both of them were paranoid schizophrenics, which allegedly puts Levy out of the picture. You seem to like citing precedent but only when it suits. Case in point, there are exceptional cases where a serial killer will stop of his own accord but in the main they need to be stopped. You're deluding yourself if you think the guy who completely butchered Mary Kelly returned to a normal life afterwards.

[Fisherman]

Yes, it`s in the papers, but he`s not referred to as Wetzel in the police reports, although they obviously knew that was his full name

Was it his full name, or was Wetzel an alias, as claimed in the Pall Mall Gazette? Under which name was he listed officially?

We do know that he was named Charles Ludwig, at least.

And we do know that the carman was NOT named Charles Cross.

And in the end, maybe we need to move with the overwhelming majority of the cases - people with an alias are named by their right names by the police and the alias is added.

The fact that we may find tiny loopholes and exceptions to rules (not that I am saying this applies to Ludwig) does not mean that we should wave farewell to all logic.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
Bummer! I was hoping you would get into this a little more.

Are you saving it for the book? ; )

You and lech are writing a book right?
(im actually serious about this-and if you are im telling you now I would buy it)

Edward is writing a book.
I may be writing another book, but that is no certain thing.
We are not writing any book together.

I do not wich to go into too many matters in the ongoing discussion. I think that the part presented by Westbourne Wink, and fleshed out by yours truly in post 268 is what we should concentate on right now. The reason is that it takes us very close to a certainty that Lechmrfe lied his way past Mizen. That in it´s turn means that we have a very fair case for him being the killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

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

Hi fish
I think you left out a very possible scenario.

Mizen misremembered what lech told him, because when he got to the body neil was already there. In my mind a simple mistake.

And that's why he doesn't make a big stink about it-because he realized he could have misrembered.

[Lechmere]

Did he immediately misremember and so carried on knocking up?
Had ge misremembered by the time he reached Neil?

[Fisherman]

Harry D: What do you? There's no evidence that Lechmere had the necessary knowledge for the mutilations, therefore why should anyone of us jump to the conclusion that he did?

You have no idea what knowledge it took. Are you placing yourself knowledgewise over the doctors?
Thomas Bond - who was there and who saw the handiwork of the Ripper - said: In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion be does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

Who are you to throw yourself forward as the better judge? Only to speak of ME as "jumping to conclusions"...?

Are you a doctor? Are you a butcher? Did you see the bodies in 1888?

But fine, if you want Lechmere connected to the meat business, I´ll give you Lechmere connected to the meat business.

Meet Arthur Ingram! Mr Ingram is a transport historian who has written "The story of Pickfords". And he says that the Pickfords Broad Street depot dealt mainly with meat. The carmen knit to the depot delivered meat on a daily basis to Smithfield Market and a large number of butchers throughout the East end.

So not only would Charles Lechmere have been tied very closely to the meat business - he would also have had a very good reason to have bloodstains on his clothes, and an equally good reason to carry a sharp, longbladed knife.

George Bagster Phillips believed the killer possessed anatomical skill? To cleanly eviscerate Chapman within ten minutes, in those conditions, was indubitably the mark of a skilled hand. Not some carman fumbling in the dark. :P

Phillips was the only doctor who went that far - the rest did NOT agree. Please look at what Bond said once more. We cannot cherrypick our sources to fit our respective bills. The jury is out on the question of anatomical skills, and you need to accept that.
Besided, why would "some carman" fumble? Why would it be physically impossible for him to have a safe and shure hand - not least if he was dealing with meat on an everyday basis as per Ingram? Plus we don´t know if head been cutting away at the Torso victims for ten years plus when he killed Nichols - he COULD have. If so, why would we think him a fumbling carman? He could have been an accomplished killer, used to cutting up human carcasses and with an everyday contact with the butchery business.

Then Richard Chase never existed, then Son of Sam never existed.

Chase never existed as a silent killer who left no traces behind. He could not have carried out the Ripper murders and he could not have disappeared without a trace each time. Paranoid schizophrenics dont do that.

Berkowitz lied about hearing voices. He hoped to con the judge into believing that he was a paranoid schizophrenic, if I am not misremembering things.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
I think you left out a very possible scenario.

Mizen misremembered what lech told him, because when he got to the body neil was already there. In my mind a simple mistake.

And that's why he doesn't make a big stink about it-because he realized he could have misrembered.

I´m afraid this is grasping at straws, Abby. We have it all on record, and Mizens ensuing actions are very indicative about what happened.

When we are down to suggesting "But what if he misheard something or misinterpreted it?", then we are really desperate.

The safest bet by far is that Lechmere lied to Mizen.

After that, there is a miniscule chance that Mizen misheard.

The safest bet is that if Lechmere lied, then he is also the killer.

After that, there is a miniscule chance that he lied to get quicker to job - and simultaneously took the risk to get himself in very much trouble for it.

And to think, this man is presented as a witness (!) on Casebook! Ripperology is truly the Land Behind the Mirror.

And on Wiki, it is said that he has been mooted as a suspect in the Nichols case. As if he had not been mooted for anything else for three years now!

I´m off for now, and I will let you digest the Mizen scam and the meat delivery business.

I´m sure neither will make any difference - it can NOT have been Lechmere. People do NOT kill en route to work. Family men are family men, and not serial killers. Every once in a while, such a man may be desperatley unlucky in terms of having a pile of evidence the size of the Everest pointing against him, but not to worry! There will always be the Casebook knights to defend him.

And he does not compare in any way to the excellent suspect George Hutchinson.

Plus he would have run. Of course.

The best,
Fisherman

[Scott Nelson]

But I can assure you Herr General...

Klink, you fool!!

[Abby Normal]

Did he immediately misremember and so carried on knocking up?
Had ge misremembered by the time he reached Neil?

No he (may have)misremembered much later, probably a day or so, but definitely by the inquest.

I see what your getting at though. Why would he keep knocking up? Because he did not at that time think it was that serious-the carmen were not sure of the seriousness of the matter-so why would the person they told? He probably just thought it was another passed out drunk.

[Abby Normal]

I´m afraid this is grasping at straws, Abby. We have it all on record, and Mizens ensuing actions are very indicative about what happened.

When we are down to suggesting "But what if he misheard something or misinterpreted it?", then we are really desperate.

The safest bet by far is that Lechmere lied to Mizen.

After that, there is a miniscule chance that Mizen misheard.

The safest bet is that if Lechmere lied, then he is also the killer.

After that, there is a miniscule chance that he lied to get quicker to job - and simultaneously took the risk to get himself in very much trouble for it.

And to think, this man is presented as a witness (!) on Casebook! Ripperology is truly the Land Behind the Mirror.

And on Wiki, it is said that he has been mooted as a suspect in the Nichols case. As if he had not been mooted for anything else for three years now!

I´m off for now, and I will let you digest the Mizen scam and the meat delivery business.

I´m sure neither will make any difference - it can NOT have been Lechmere. People do NOT kill en route to work. Family men are family men, and not serial killers. Every once in a while, such a man may be desperatley unlucky in terms of having a pile of evidence the size of the Everest pointing against him, but not to worry! There will always be the Casebook knights to defend him.

And he does not compare in any way to the excellent suspect George Hutchinson.

Plus he would have run. Of course.

The best,
Fisherman

ditch the pissiness fish please. I am actually empathetic to your case, if you haven't figured that out by now.

And yes, I think you and lech have made enough clear and concise arguments that Lech should have a suspect listing here. To be completely frank, I never even considered him a viable suspect-I didn't even think about it- before you and lech brought it up.

And I think he does compare a lot to hutch actually-they actually have a lot of similarities!

And yes-thank you- I will contemplate more the "mizen scam" and the cats meat business. I find them both rather intriguing actually.

[Fisherman]

ditch the pissiness fish please. I am actually empathetic to your case, if you haven't figured that out by now.

And yes, I think you and lech have made enough clear and concise arguments that Lech should have a suspect listing here. To be completely frank, I never even considered him a viable suspect-I didn't even think about it- before you and lech brought it up.

And I think he does compare a lot to hutch actually-they actually have a lot of similarities!

And yes-thank you- I will contemplate more the "mizen scam" and the cats meat business. I find them both rather intriguing actually.

I´m not after you specifically, Abby, I´m sorry if I gave that impression - and I know that you are sympathetic to our case. But I find it strange that you will go out of your way to find alternative explanations, when there is a perfectly logical and reasonable version that should take precedence! And that tallies with the rest of the story!

Now, suddenly Mizen misremembering things and construing in retrospect a belief that the carman must have told him about PC Neil is the suggestion...?! And this is something Mizen supposedly conjures up because he sees that there is a PC in place?

But how credible is it? If Mizen was just told that there was a woman lying on her back in Buck´s Row, then why would he react to Neils presence by going: Geez, another PC - surely that carman must have told me about him!

Why on Gods green earth would he do that?

If somebody tells you that there is a dog with two heads in the adjacent street, and you scuttle off to look at the beast - would you, if there was a firefighter in place when you arrived - automatically go "Oh, a firefighter - the guy who spoke of the dog must have mentioned him too"?

There is absolutely zero reason to think that this was so. Yet you dub it "a very possible scenario". Why? How?

It´s anything but a very possible scenario, Abby. At best, it is a freak possibility.

If Mizen was just told about the woman, then he would have been surprised by seeing another PC in place, and he would make the totally logical assumption that the PC had arrived after the carmen left.

If it had been a newspaper boy - do you still think that Mizen would have gone "Ah, the carman must have told me that there was a newspaper boy here"?

If it was a preacher, a dock labourer, a Tahitian warrior - would it be "very possible" that Mizen banked on the carman having told him that these persons would be in place?

Just how credible is that? Really?

The best,
Fisherman