Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

G'day again Fisherman

You keep talking about him using Lechmere with authorities, do we have any other record of him talking to the police?

If you have answered this elsewhere I am sorry I don't remember seeing it.

You see to me there is a good reason to use Cross with the police, the fact that his step father was one, and may well be known at the station. A nervous person may well try to take advantage of a family connection, and that could also be a pointer towards guilt.

Yes, once again we have a logical possibility and a freak one.

I would say that if he was nervous, he should avoid lying about his true identity to the police, considering that he found the body alone. It could - and should - mean very severe questioning and a lot of trouble if found out. At the end of it all, it could be the scaffold for him, and thatīs not a place you want to be if you are of a nervous disposition.

And no, there are no other police contacts on record. So if we wish to grasp at straws, hereīs one!

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Wow. The first person after Phil Carter arrives to see significance in the meat carrying business!

Of course, a lot of ifīs and buutīs are added, and it is said that we could tell the difference between butchery blood and serial killer victim blood (it would be VERY different), but nevertheless - it is some little acknowledgement, anyhow.

As for the book, I donīt know if the information is in there. My information derives from private conversations with Arthur Ingram.

And thatīs all I am ready to divulge at this moment.

It should be enough.

The best,
Fisherman

So I've possibly wasted Ģ10 on a book about removal vans.

It's not (good) enough for you to suggest that the work of a cart driver would involve butchery. Do you think a slaughterman would hand over a consignment of meat to a delivery man and expect him to carry out a few last minute bits of trimming on the way to Smithfield or wherever?

And neither is it (good) enough for you to twist my words to make them seem ridiculous. Butchered meat contains very little blood. So the STAINING would be different, not the blood itself. Compared to a slaughterman, a butcher would have little staining on his clothes. And compared to a butcher, a meat delivery man would have even less.

I would rein in any initial excitement about Lech being covered in gore and carrying a long bloody knife if I were you.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Nothin compares to U

Fisherman

Obviously Five Believers

(Slightly out of date as we now have 8!!)

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

So I've possibly wasted Ģ10 on a book about removal vans.

I donīt actually know, as I have not read the book myself. But I think youīll get your moneyīs worth, Mr Barnett.

It's not (good) enough for you to suggest that the work of a cart driver would involve butchery. Do you think a slaughterman would hand over a consignment of meat to a delivery man and expect him to carry out a few last minute bits of trimming on the way to Smithfield or wherever?

No, I donīt. But I have no trouble seeing a cartman delivering meat halving chunks of it before he delivers to a local butchery. It would save him carrying the other half in both directions unneccesarily.

I would also like to add that the question whether the killer had a butcherīs knowledge or not must be an open one. Maybe he did, maybe he didnīt. But Lechmere could well have developed a fscination with cutting into flesh on account of his job, thatīs what I am saying.
No matter how we cut and slice it ( ) , it must be said that this is a major breakthrough for the Lechmere theory. Letīs not forget that!

And neither is it (good) enough for you to twist my words to make them seem ridiculous. Butchered meat contains very little blood. So the STAINING would be different, not the blood itself. Compared to a slaughterman, a butcher would have little staining on his clothes. And compared to a butcher, a meat delivery man would have even less.

I am not twisting your words. At least I have no such intention. But if Lechmere delivered meat on his cart, then we should realize that the floor of the cart would come in contact with thousands and thousands of cut-up carcasses over the years. Eventually, the floor would soak up so much blood that it would be coloured all over by it.
If you were to put a torso - perhaps not freshly cut, as was the case with the Pinchin Street torso - on it, there is not a chance in hell that anybody would be able to tell whatever blood came from it from all of the other bloodstains on that floor.
It would be the ideal transporting vehicle for a torso killer for example. I think there can be no denying that. If we look at the Ripper murders only, then he did not transport any of the victims on the cart anyway.

I would rein in any initial excitement about Lech being covered in gore and carrying a long bloody knife if I were you.

Well, if you donīt want me to misrepresent you, then please do me the same favour! I am saying that we can see how he would be able to explain bloodstains on his clothing, and I am saying that I do not exclude that he would have had reason to carry a butcherīs knife in his occupation, although this needs further substantiation.

On the whole, though, I think we are looking at something that much strengthens Lechmereeīs candidature. I would not wanīt to have it said that I am drawing too much on it as such, so therefore I do not like this picture I supposedly brought up (I didnīt, of course - it was you).

Charles Lechmere seemingly delivered meat.
The meat business is one associated with cutting flesh and producing blood.
He may have employed a long, sharp knife in his line of business.
He would have had an explanation for bloodstains on his person.
He had a transporting vehicle which would be ideal to transport human flesh and bodies on, should he wish to.

Thatīs about it, so far.

And thatīs not half bad, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Sorry Fisherman

Charles Lechmere seemingly delivered meat

Can you give me one just one piece of evidence to support this, sure Pickford's delivered meat but they also delivered a lot of other goods.

Or is there something I've missed that proves that Lechmere delivered meat.

[MrBarnett]

Charles Lechmere seemingly delivered meat.

Seemingly, or possibly?

The meat business is one associated with cutting flesh and producing blood.

Slaughtering, certainly, and butchery. But not the transporting of the meat.

He may have employed a long, sharp knife in his line of business.

Good to see you using the word MAY this time.
But it's not very likely that the cart driver was involved in butchery.

He would have had an explanation for bloodstains on his person.

Smears, maybe. But not enough to disguise fresh blood spatter.

He had a transporting vehicle which would be ideal to transport human flesh and bodies on, should he wish to.

Which victims are you suggesting were transported by cart? And do you imagine his van boy was complicit in the murders?

That's about it, so far. And thatīs not half bad, is it?

Interesting, but not earth-shattering. When you make the Islington connection, that's when I will really sit up and take notice (pet theory alert!!)

[Fisherman]

GUT:
Sorry Fisherman

Donīt be.

Can you give me one just one piece of evidence to support this, sure Pickford's delivered meat but they also delivered a lot of other goods.

If Arthur Ingram is correct, the Pickfords depot in Broad Street more or less exclusively dealt with meat transports. Whether this holds true or not, I canīt say. But he is a transport historian and he has researched Pickfords extensively, so I think it will be hard to find a better source.

Thatīs as good evidence as I can give you. But on the whole, I think it is a tad strange to ask me to give you evidence - I already had, hadnīt I?

Or is there something I've missed that proves that Lechmere delivered meat.

No, you have not missed anything as such, since I had not before told you the full extent of what Ingram states. Now you know, though.

And now that you DO know, if you accept what Ingram says, that Pickfords of the Broad Street depot more or less dealt with meat transports only - what does it mean to your perception of the suggestion that Lechmere could have been the killer?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:
Charles Lechmere seemingly delivered meat.

Seemingly, or possibly?

Certainly, if you ask Arthur Ingram.

The meat business is one associated with cutting flesh and producing blood.

Slaughtering, certainly, and butchery. But not the transporting of the meat.

I donīt know about that. Blood would have seeped out on the carters vehicle, and he may well have been required to cut meat parts. We need to delve deeper in to those specific bits in the future.

He may have employed a long, sharp knife in his line of business.

Good to see you using the word MAY this time.
But it's not very likely that the cart driver was involved in butchery.

Not butchery as such, no - but he may have dealt with meatcutting to some extent. And in Lechmereīs case, he may well have been deeply involved in the catīs meat business too. He would have lived in a world full of hunks of meat and cut-up carcasses, Mr Barnett. To me, that must carry significance.

He would have had an explanation for bloodstains on his person.

Smears, maybe. But not enough to disguise fresh blood spatter.

I think that is somewhat secondary. But I can see where this is going - we now only have a "maybe" attached to the suggestion that he could have had blood on his person, and I think that is slightly ridiculous to be honest. We are speaking of a carter that would have carried parts of animal bodies, slabs of meat and innards onto his cart. It is not a "maybe" that he would get blood on him - it is a certainty.

He had a transporting vehicle which would be ideal to transport human flesh and bodies on, should he wish to.

Which victims are you suggesting were transported by cart? And do you imagine his van boy was complicit in the murders?

Now look at you - you are now introducing a van boy as if it was an absolute certainty that there was such a person around. That is rather hard to establish, Iīd say.
If you read my former post, you will know that I said that he COULD transport bodies on the cart, but that he never did so in the Ripper murder series. The Pinchin Street torso was manually carried, and thatīs the one that has links to Lechmere.
However, if he WAS the Torso killer, meaning that the Pinchin Street torso belonged to the Torso tally, then he would have had the perfect transporting vehicle.

That's about it, so far. And thatīs not half bad, is it?

Interesting, but not earth-shattering. When you make the Islington connection, that's when I will really sit up and take notice (pet theory alert!!)

It IS as earth-shattering as it is gonna get in the Ripper discussions - it applies that whenever a suspect that could formerly not be connected to the butchery business, suddenly can be tied closely to it, then the earth WILL tremble. You know that as well as I do. Just ponder what Phil Carter said earlier - imagine that this would be revealed about Kosminski, that he was not a hairdresser but instead Charles Lechmeres van boy, doing the rounds with tons of meat on his cart!

But now it is about Lechmere and not Kosminski, so instead of saying "Wow - thatīs a major, major find and that alters the game totally - good for you!", we instead go "nothing earthshattering".

And thatīs just a bit sad. Then again, I donīt come here to get a fair judgement.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

I'm curious as to why Pickfords would have a depot specialising in the transportation of meat the City when the main slaughterhouses were in Islington. Perhaps Pickfords had another depot there, and Broad Street catered for the likes of Harrison and Barber in Winthrop Street

Or are we saying that carcasses arrived at Broad Street by train?

Fascinating stuff, Fish. Definitely needs some more research.

[MrBarnett]

MrBarnett:
Charles Lechmere seemingly delivered meat.

Seemingly, or possibly?

Certainly, if you ask Arthur Ingram.

The meat business is one associated with cutting flesh and producing blood.

Slaughtering, certainly, and butchery. But not the transporting of the meat.

I donīt know about that. Blood would have seeped out on the carters vehicle, and he may well have been required to cut meat parts. We need to delve deeper in to those specific bits in the future.

He may have employed a long, sharp knife in his line of business.

Good to see you using the word MAY this time.
But it's not very likely that the cart driver was involved in butchery.

Not butchery as such, no - but he may have dealt with meatcutting to some extent. And in Lechmereīs case, he may well have been deeply involved in the catīs meat business too. He would have lived in a world full of hunks of meat and cut-up carcasses, Mr Barnett. To me, that must carry significance.

He would have had an explanation for bloodstains on his person.

Smears, maybe. But not enough to disguise fresh blood spatter.

I think that is somewhat secondary. But I can see where this is going - we now only have a "maybe" attached to the suggestion that he could have had blood on his person, and I think that is slightly ridiculous to be honest. We are speaking of a carter that would have carried parts of animal bodies, slabs of meat and innards onto his cart. It is not a "maybe" that he would get blood on him - it is a certainty.

He had a transporting vehicle which would be ideal to transport human flesh and bodies on, should he wish to.

Which victims are you suggesting were transported by cart? And do you imagine his van boy was complicit in the murders?

Now look at you - you are now introducing a van boy as if it was an absolute certainty that there was such a person around. That is rather hard to establish, Iīd say.
If you read my fomer post, you will know that I said that he COULD transport bodies on the cart, but that he never did so in the Ripper murder series. The Pinchin Street torso was manually carried, and thatīs the one that has links to Lechmere.
However, if he WAS the Torso killer, meaning that the Pinchins Street torso belonged to the Torso tally, then he would have had the perfect transporting vehicle.

That's about it, so far. And thatīs not half bad, is it?

Interesting, but not earth-shattering. When you make the Islington connection, that's when I will really sit up and take notice (pet theory alert!!)


It IS as earth-shattering as it is gonna get in the Ripper discussions - it applies that whenever a suspect that could formerly not be connected to the butchery business, suddenly can be tied closely to it, then the earth WILL tremble. You know that as well as I do. Just ponder what Phil Carter said earlier - imagine that this would be revealed about Kosminski, that he was not a hairdresser but instead Charles Lechmeres van boy, doing the rounds with tons of meat on his cart!

But now it is about Lechmere and not Kosminski, so instead of saying "Wow - thatīs a major, major find and that alters the game totally - good for you!", we instead go "nothing earthshattering".

And thatīs just a bit sad. Then again, you donīt come here to get a fair judgement.

The best,
Fisherman

Are you telling us that Arthur Ingram says Lech was certainly in the meat transportation business?

If so, and he is correct, it means he either has specific details about Lechmere or he is saying that Pickfords, Broad Street dealt solely in meat.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Are you telling us that Arthur Ingram says Lech was certainly in the meat transportation business?

If so, and he is correct, it means he either has specific details about Lechmere or he is saying that Pickfords, Broad Street dealt solely in meat.

MrB

Much as I would like to get to the bottom of all of this, I have other things to do too ( who would have thought it? ), and I am abroad most of next week. After that, we shall see!

All I can say right now is that the impression I have, is that meat was what Pickfords handled at Broad Street, as per Ingram. He is actually rather categoric about it. But I donīt mind double-checking when I get the opportunity.

And who knows, maybe itīs even in that book you invested in.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

You are going to have to wait for an answer to that one, Iīm afraid. But Iīll get there. I have a few questions of my own that I need answers to, but it will take some time to get them.
Some patience on your behalf is required, Iīm afraid.

Much as I would like to get to the bottom of all of this, I have other things to do too ( who would have thought it? ), and I am abroad most of next week. After that, we shall see!

All I can say right now is that the impression I have, is that meat was what Pickfords handled at Broad Street, as per Ingram.

The best,
Fisherman

I will try to be patient.

Don't get me wrong, this is a very interesting development as far as I am concerned. I'm particularly interested in the connection between the slaughterhouses in the East End and the Metropolitan Cattle Market in Islington.

Have a safe journey, wherever it is you're off to. I'm off to the Dorset a coast for a few days myself next week, so JTR will take a back seat to family fun.

MrB

[Fisherman]

I will try to be patient.

Don't get me wrong, this is a very interesting development as far as I am concerned. I'm particularly interested in the connection between the slaughterhouses in the East End and the Metropolitan Cattle Market in Islington.

Have a safe journey, wherever it is you're off to. I'm off to the Dorset a coast for a few days myself next week, so JTR will take a back seat to family fun.

MrB

Dorset? A beautiful county! Me, Iīm off to Barcelona, which should be nice too - 20 degrees celsius ...

I think the Broad Street depot was closely tied to Smithfield market, which is of course closer to Broad Street than the Metropolitan cattle market.

And I know that you would be interested in all of this - it makes sense. However, since there is such a radical difference in how eartshattering news about Lechmere is received, as opposed to how much smaller bits and pieces concerning the legitimate prospects, if you will, are greeted, I will miss no opportunity to point this out. If this holds true - and I think we will have to accept that it does - then it is a very heavy argument in favour of Lechmereīs candidacy.

I have said over and over again that I expect any forthcoming information concerning the carman to potentially add to his viability as the Ripper, whereas I think that nothing at all will be found to diminish him as a prospect.
So far, this has all held true. When I first said it, the Mizen scam was still not found out, for example. To me, that is the foremost tool we will have for bringing Lechmere down. There will be no certain proof, but the scam alone carries all the indications we need to place him at the top of the list of suspects.
He lied, Lechmere. And we lie for reasons.

And now the meat and butchery connection is arriving! Again, whenever we add information about the carman, we also add to the suspicions.

To Hutchinson, nothing of value has been added since 1888. He gave a detailed description of a man he had seen with Kelly back then, and that is basically still all the Hutchinsonians have to go on.

And what do we have here on Casebook? We have more than twice as many believers in Hutchinsons guilt as we have when it comes to Lechmere, about whom more and more material has been piled up, all of it pointing in the exact same direction.

That, my friend, is pure Ripperology for you!

Enjoy Dorset! Iīll drink to your health in Barcelona. And then I will singlehandedly empty a jug of sangria and dedicate it to the sobering up of people out here.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

All very true, Phil. The hours tick by, I have pointed out that the job Lechmere did was one where he drove meat to butcheries and meat markets, and I have pointed out that he had reason to have bloodstained clothes and to carry a long-bladed, sharp butcherīs knife along with him.

Just like you say, in any other case this revelation would empty the champagne stocks all over town, but in this case all there is, is silence.

Hello out there! The case could be getting cracked, piece by piece, right under your noses! Charles Lechmere was seemingly deeply involved in the butchery business, he would arguably spend his days looking at people carving away at carcasses, cutting limbs away, opening up bellies, taking out entrails, and he may well have participated to some extent. He could reasonably have driven human bodies on his cart, and nobody would ask about the blood afterwards.

But why would anybody care - itīs just Lechmere, the kindly family man, we are speaking of. Who am I trying to fool?

And he would have run anyway.

Thanks for seeing right through it, Phil!

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Christer,

Without any DIRECT comparison, I thought of Carl Grossmann and Fritz Haarmann.

Meat, in poor areas, in times of poverty causes many kinds of strange criminal behaviour.

The meat man and his cart....

best regards

Phil

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer,

Without any DIRECT comparison, I thought of Carl Grossmann and Fritz Haarmann.

Meat, in poor areas, in times of poverty causes many kinds of strange criminal behaviour.

The meat man and his cart....

best regards

Phil

A fair enough reflection, Phil - there is actually research on the potential link between slaughterhouses and criminality, made by professor Amy Fitzgerald of the Windsor University in Canada. A link of interest would be:

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2010/05/14/probing_the_link_between_slaughterhouses_and_violent_crime.html

Hereīs a mouthwatering excerpt from the text, speaking of Fitzgeralds research:

She became fascinated by studies of the environmental effects of slaughterhouses that mentioned crime rates, without explanation, seemed to go up when the factories opened in communities.
Fitzgerald carefully weighed the figures in order to see whether a link really existed. She found that an average-sized slaughterhouse with 175 employees would annually increase the number of arrests by 2.24 and the number of reports by 4.69. The larger the abattoir, the worse the local crime problem.

The best,
Fisherman