Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Apologies if this is too long and a little off topic...

    ON a piping hot summer's day - the thermometer marking 80 in the shade I took it into my head that I would go and see how such weather agreed with a place so terrible as Belle-Isle was made out to be.
    It is doubtful if, left to himself, the stranger would ever discover the place in question. Those who are disposed for a similar exploration, however, may accept the following simple direction. Turn up a road called the York-road, by the side of the King's-cross railway station, and follow your nose. Even should the wind be unfavourable, the air will certainly be laden with peculiar indications that may safely be trusted for guidance. Keep straight along the York-road, and gradually you will be sensible of leaving civilization behind you. You will discover on the right-hand side of the way, opposite to some cottages which stand in a street that is "no thoroughfare," a modest pair of gates attached to a red-brick lodge bearing the inscription "Cemetery Entrance." Here it is that bodies intended for interment in out-of-town cemeteries are housed until the stated time arrives for their conveyance down the line.
    It is a terribly deserted and melancholy place, looking as though every one connected with its proper and decent keeping had given up the ghost and slipped down the line with the rest. Between the gates and the dismal house where the coffins are stored, there is a space which desperate efforts have been made to con-[-64-]vert into a kitchen garden; but never was there a more ghastly failure. Barren, sickly, yellow-cabbage stalks, that have out-grown their strength, crop out of the ground all aslant; while fierce rank weeds have seized on more tender plants of the green tribe, and strangled them till they are absolutely black in the face. The iron gate has long shed the coat of paint by which it was originally covered, and glows dusky red with rust.
    It is evident that no one now resides at the lodge; for there is a board on which are inscribed directions to "apply over the way," and when last I passed a dozen or so of shoeless, almost breechesless young Belle-Islanders were swarming over the wall, and deriving immense satisfaction from the pastime of pitching old tin pots and other gutter refuse upon a sort of high-up window-ledge.
    But you do not arrive at Belle-Isle proper until you reach the archway that spans the road. At this point you may dispense with the services of your faithful olfactory guide; indeed, it will be better, provided you do it in a way that shall not be remarkable-for the act is one that the inhabitants may resent - to mask its keen discrimination with your pocket handkerchief. Here, an appropriate sentinel at the threshold of this delectable place, stands the great horse-slaughtering establishment of the late celebrated Mr. John Atcheler.
    As a horse-slaughtering establishment nothing can be said against it. I am afraid to say how many hundred lame, diseased, and worn-out animals weekly find surcease of sorrow within Atcheler's gates-or how many tons of nutriment for the feline species are daily boiled in the immense coppers and carried away every morning by a legion of industrious barrowmen. Everything, I have no doubt, is managed in the best possible way; [-65-] but that best still leaves a terribly broad margin for odours that can only be described as nauseating. In the shadow of the slaughter-yard is a public-house-a house of call for the poleaxe men and those who, with a hook to catch fast hold, and an enormous knife, denude the worn-out horses' bones of the little flesh that remains attached to them.
    They are terrible looking fellows, these honest horse slaughterers. They seem rather to cultivate than avoid stains of a crimson colour; and they may be seen at the bar of the public-house before-mentioned, merry as sandboys, haw-hawing in the true and original "fee-fo-fum" tone, drinking pots of beer with red hands and with faces that look as though they had been swept with a sanguinary hearth-broom. You can see all this from the gateway where the savage young Belle-Islanders congregate to give fierce prods with pointed sticks at the miserable bare-ribbed old horses as they come hobbling in. Altogether the picture is one to be remembered.
    The horse slaughterer's place, however, is by no means the ugliest feature of Belle-Isle. Its inodorous breath is fragrant compared with the pestilent blast that greets the sense of smell before a distance of fifty paces further has been accomplished. The spot that holds the horse slaughter houses is modestly called "The Vale;" the first turning beyond is, with goblin like humour, designated "Pleasant Grove." It is hardly too much to say, that almost every trade banished from the haunts of men, on account of the villanous smells and the dangerous atmosphere which it engenders is represented in Pleasant Grove. There are bone boilers, fat-melters, "chemical works," firework makers, lucifer-match factories, and several most extensive and flourishing dust-[-66-]yards, where - at this delightful season so excellent for ripening corn - scores of women and young girls find employment in sifting the refuse of dust-bins, standing knee-high in what they sift. In the midst of all this is a long row of cottages, each tenanted by at least one family; and little children, by dozens and scores, find delight in the reeking kennels. These are the very little ones; those of somewhat larger growth turn their attention to matters less trivial.
    For instance, a knot of half-a-dozen were calmly enjoying, at the wide-open gates of a sort of yard, the edifying and instructive spectacle of a giant, stripped to his waist, smashing up with a sledge-hammer the entire red skeletons of horses that had just been dragged from the cutting and stripping department. Again, the juvenile Bell-Islanders are not so benighted that they have not heard of the game of cricket; nor did a lack of the recognised appliances needed for that noble game frustrate their praiseworthy determination to do something like what other boys do. A green sward was, of course, out of the question; but they had; to the number of eight or ten, chosen a tolerably level bit between two dust-heaps. For wickets they had a pile of old hats and broken crockery; for bat the stump leg of an old bedstead, and for ball the head of a kitten.
    This is not romance, but earnest fact. With the thermometer at 80 in the shade, there was the merry young band of cricketers, their faces and the rest of their visible flesh the very colour of the dust they sported among; and, the sun blazing down on their uncovered heads, they were bowling up the kitten's head, giving it fair spanks with the bedstead - leg for ones and twos, and looking out with barbarous relish for "catches." Evidently they were boys employed in some of the sur-[-67-]rounding factories, and this was the way in which they sought recreation in their dinner-hour! I say evidently they were factory-lads, because their fantastic aspect bespoke them such. There were boys whose rags were of a universal yellow tint, as though they were intimately acquainted with the manufacture of sulphur or some such material; boys whose rags were black as a sweep's; and other boys who were splashed with many colours, that made them twinkle in the sun like demon harlequins as they wrestled in the ashes for possession of the "ball."

    Comment


    • Thatīs a nice piece, Mr Barnett - and very well-written too ; ",,, and for ball the head of a kitten".

      Actually, it has ties to the research of professor Fitzgerald and other people who have written about the slaughteries in the cities of olden days. A lack of respect for living creatures supposedly develops, and that lack can deepen into something darker - or so the word goes.

      The best,
      Fisherman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Thatīs a nice piece, Mr Barnett - and very well-written too ; ",,, and for ball the head of a kitten".

        Actually, it has ties to the research of professor Fitzgerald and other people who have written about the slaughteries in the cities of olden days. A lack of respect for living creatures supposedly develops, and that lack can deepen into something darker - or so the word goes.

        The best,
        Fisherman
        Yes, Fish, it was the black humour of using the kitten's head as a cricket ball I most enjoyed. (Sorry, cat - lovers!)

        Such kids would be desensitised from an early age, their fathers bringing home such treasures as horses eyes and buckets of blood for the garden. And by witnessing casual cruelty towards animals in the markets.

        MrB

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
          Yes, Fish, it was the black humour of using the kitten's head as a cricket ball I most enjoyed. (Sorry, cat - lovers!)

          Such kids would be desensitised from an early age, their fathers bringing home such treasures as horses eyes and buckets of blood for the garden. And by witnessing casual cruelty towards animals in the markets.

          MrB
          Sounds feasible enough to me. And one of the points made about the slaughterers is that they would fend themselves off emotionally when cutting the necks of animal after animal, only to carve them up into little pieces afterwards. Killing takes itīs toll, and there is only so much you can do to safeguard yourself.

          The best,
          Fisherman
          Last edited by Fisherman; 10-25-2014, 08:46 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman
            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."
            I'd value Bagster Phillips's professional opinion over Bond's. Wasn't MJK the only victim that Bond had first-hand experience with? There wasn't anything leftover in that bloodbath to deduce any kind of anatomical skill from.

            Also, in the case of the first two murders, the medical consensus of Dr Llewellyn, Baxter and Bagster Phillips was that the perpetrator was someone possessing some level of anatomical knowledge.

            Originally posted by Fisherman
            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."
            The key word being 'delivered'.

            Originally posted by Fisherman
            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."
            Chase was completely away with the faeries and yet it took a month before he was caught, in 20th century America no less. Could a schizophrenic have been able to get away with the murders within the seedy East End of Victorian London? I have little doubt that he would. He was targeting vulnerable, down-and-out whores and to borrow a quote, would've only had to ask "I'll give you a shilling for a blowjob" to get them onside.

            Just to recap:

            Jacob Levy...
            1) was a butcher.
            2) was a Jew who got carted off to the asylum around the time the murders stopped and died thereafter.
            3) his cousin was a potential witness, who got freaked out after seeing Eddowes with her (probable) killer.
            4) by his wife's admission wandered the streets at night and harboured feelings of violence.
            5) lived in the local area all his life.
            6) was suffering (and died from) syphilis.
            7) whose brother possibly lived in the Wentworth building, next to where the apron & GSG were found.
            8) was arguably the Butcher's Row suspect.

            You are welcome to try and discredit Levy as suspect, you've already tried in vain but don't let that stop you. Rest assured that even you should succeed in this quest, it does absolutely diddily squat to bolster Crossmere's case, because if Levy, with all that he has going for him, is considered a weak suspect, I have no idea what that says about Crossmere - a man who's only crime was apparently finding the first victim.

            Comment


            • Harry D: I'd value Bagster Phillips's professional opinion over Bond's. Wasn't MJK the only victim that Bond had first-hand experience with? There wasn't anything leftover in that bloodbath to deduce any kind of anatomical skill from.

              There was a lot of cut surfaces, and thatīs how you determine the skill, believe it or not. In this respect, MAry Kelly was the victim that offered most things to go on, by far.
              Anyhow, the consensus, more or less, amongst the doctors was that there was little or no skill involved. Phillips was an exception to the rule.

              Also, in the case of the first two murders, the medical consensus of Dr Llewellyn, Baxter and Bagster Phillips was that the perpetrator was someone possessing some level of anatomical knowledge.

              Llewellyn had Nichols to go on, and he said that the killer would have had some rough anatomical skill, since he had attacked all the vital parts. Whether he did so purposefull or not was open to discussion. Thomas Bodn - much superior to Llewellyn - read the report and disagreed.

              Baxter was no medical man at all.

              We can go on doing this forever, and it wonīt change that the jury is out on the question of skill, Harry. Most doctors had a very hesitating take on the suggestion.

              The key word being 'delivered'.

              As you wish. The rest of us will probably take in that Lechmere spent decades around the slaughterhouses and meat depots, being able to pick up on - and perhaps participate in - all sorts of cutting practices.
              If you think it is wise to diss that, then be my guest. But it will say a lot more about your readiness to accept important material than anything else.

              Chase was completely away with the faeries and yet it took a month before he was caught, in 20th century America no less.

              Have a look at where he committed his deeds. Look at how many people were around to disclose him. Then compare to the Ripper murder spots.

              Could a schizophrenic have been able to get away with the murders within the seedy East End of Victorian London? I have little doubt that he would. He was targeting vulnerable, down-and-out whores and to borrow a quote, would've only had to ask "I'll give you a shilling for a blowjob" to get them onside.

              It all sounds very neat and simple, Iīm sure. And why look at the circumstances?

              Just to recap:

              Jacob Levy...
              1) was a butcher.
              2) was a Jew who got carted off to the asylum around the time the murders stopped and died thereafter.
              3) his cousin was a potential witness, who got freaked out after seeing Eddowes with her (probable) killer.
              4) by his wife's admission wandered the streets at night and harboured feelings of violence.
              5) lived in the local area all his life.
              6) was suffering (and died from) syphilis.
              7) whose brother possibly lived in the Wentworth building, next to where the apron & GSG were found.
              8) was arguably the Butcher's Row suspect.

              9) is and remains bad suspect. Not worse than many others, but nevertheless bad.

              You are welcome to try and discredit Levy as suspect, you've already tried in vain but don't let that stop you. Rest assured that even you should succeed in this quest, it does absolutely diddily squat to bolster Crossmere's case, because if Levy, with all that he has going for him, is considered a weak suspect, I have no idea what that says about Crossmere - a man who's only crime was apparently finding the first victim.

              You go on fighting your little war, Harry dear. I have other things to do, so if youīll excuse me...?

              The very best,
              Fisherman

              Comment


              • I don't believe a layman could've performed the kind of mutilations carried out by the Ripper, especially that of Annie Chapman. I'm an average schmo and I wouldn't have the first idea how to remove someone's internal organs in that precise manner, let alone in the dark within a matter of minutes. While the jury may indeed be out, I think the evidence alone leans in favour of some kind of anatomical knowledge rather than none.

                That Crossmere possibly delivered meat and therefore had butchery experience is pure supposition. It's certainly not implausible but there's nothing to confirm it, so once again you decide to jump to conclusions in order to make the pieces fit. Whereas we know Jacob Levy was a butcher by trade, we know he had a violent potential in his character, we know there were possible triggers for committing the murders, and we can link him to one of the witnesses (who got spooked when he saw Eddowes with her killer).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                  I don't believe a layman could've performed the kind of mutilations carried out by the Ripper, especially that of Annie Chapman. I'm an average schmo and I wouldn't have the first idea how to remove someone's internal organs in that precise manner, let alone in the dark within a matter of minutes. While the jury may indeed be out, I think the evidence alone leans in favour of some kind of anatomical knowledge rather than none.

                  That Crossmere possibly delivered meat and therefore had butchery experience is pure supposition. It's certainly not implausible but there's nothing to confirm it, so once again you decide to jump to conclusions in order to make the pieces fit. Whereas we know Jacob Levy was a butcher by trade, we know he had a violent potential in his character, we know there were possible triggers for committing the murders, and we can link him to one of the witnesses (who got spooked when he saw Eddowes with her killer).
                  You are very welcome to think that the killer had anatomical knowledge. Many people do now, many people did back then. There is, however, a difference between the knowledge of a butcher and that of a medico. A butcher would not be required to have the kind of knowledge that Phillips thought he saw in the Chapman case - butchers do not cut out female uteruses and bladders.
                  So in that context, Jacob Levy (or Charles Lechmere) would not be the kind of suspect we should look for - IF we were to accept expert anatomical knowledge on behalf of the Ripper.
                  Besides as I have pointed out before, the more common stance among the medicos whas that he had some crude knowledge or no knowledge at all. SO yes, the jury IS out.

                  As for Lechmere and his familiarity with meat and cutting, I think that the one and only thing we MUST predispose was a trait with the killer, was a fascination with meat and innards and cutting away in flesh.

                  It would seem that Pickfords on Broad Street handled meat to a very large extent (whether or not they only handled meat is something I am trying to find out), and that is quite enough for me. If Lechmere spent his days amongst animal carcasses and experienced how these carcasses were cut into, he may well have developed a fascination with it and subsequently desires of his own, knit to the trade.
                  The exact same applies to the catīs meat business - it is all about carving up creatures into small dices of meat, so in a way it is also about annihilating a co-existence, taking itīs soul and itīs life from it, and being the one who is in charge.

                  Thatīs where I draw the line for the killer and his flesh and cutting connections - a fascination MUST have been there. Whether any skill was there is written in the stars, and I donīt see a need for such a skill to explain how a fascination can grow.

                  As for Levy, he is no worse than many other suspects, but he certainly cannot be in any shape or form tied to the killings. I think that he is much on par with a fellow like Hyam Hyams, but in his case, there is at least a tentative coupling in Mitre Square, as you may know.

                  Lechmere was found alone by a dead body, freshly killed. That remains. In itself, it is something that the police would consider very serious. It carries tons of weight.

                  He lied about his identity, and that too is seriously looked upon by the police.

                  He apparently conned himself past the police on the murder night, and that would be something that had him accused of murder if the police had known. There can be very little doubt about that - he was alone with the victim, he is in line with the medical timings of death for Nichols, nobody was there to give him an alibi, and nobody else was seen leaving the spot.
                  That is a very heavy collection of accusations, and if the police had acted on it, only to discover his dual lies, he would have faced an accusation of murder.

                  Just as I donīt agree with you on Levy, you donīt have to agree with me on this. Itīs fine, Harry. If you think it is wise to call Lechmere a bad suspect, considering these things, then do so. Just be careful so you donīt yell "bad suspect" just because I say the same about Levy.
                  Suspects will always differ in viability, and this is very much such a case.

                  The best,
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • Fair enough, Fisherman. I'm happy to call it quits as we seem to have reached a deadlock. I certainly don't begrudge anyone their pet suspects, it was just the whole "the police probably would've charged Crossmere" line that I thought overstepped the mark, given the lack of damning evidence against him (and any suspect, for that matter).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                      Fair enough, Fisherman. I'm happy to call it quits as we seem to have reached a deadlock. I certainly don't begrudge anyone their pet suspects, it was just the whole "the police probably would've charged Crossmere" line that I thought overstepped the mark, given the lack of damning evidence against him (and any suspect, for that matter).
                      Where's the like button. Especially the part in parenthesis.
                      G U T

                      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                        Fair enough, Fisherman. I'm happy to call it quits as we seem to have reached a deadlock. I certainly don't begrudge anyone their pet suspects, it was just the whole "the police probably would've charged Crossmere" line that I thought overstepped the mark, given the lack of damning evidence against him (and any suspect, for that matter).
                        If that was what you disliked, then you still canīt stand me; I am of the exact same opinion now as I was then - if the police had realized that Lechmere was alone with the victim for an unknown period of time, that there was nobody leaving the spot, whereafter Nichols was found dead and Llewellyn said that she died at the very earliest around 3.40, something that was followed by the false name and the Mizen scam, then they WOULD have charged him with murder.

                        Like it or not, but it is a very useful court case, based on circumstantial evidence.

                        Otherwise, I donīt begrudge you your pet suspect either - but given what we have on him, just how close to a court case can we bring Jacob Levy? We cant even put him on the bus to the courtroom, can we?

                        Thatīs where I think our two suspects differ a lot.

                        I could go on for another hour about this - but I could also leave it. I choose the latter alternative, and wish you the best of luck researching and supporting Levy as a suspect!

                        The best,
                        Fisherman
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 10-27-2014, 03:22 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Strangely enough some in the 'Hutch camp' claim that he gave a false name and true address to the police... to make him seem more guilty.
                          And it doesn't work, does it. It doesn't work for Hutchinson - and it doesn't work for Lechmere. But then I am in neither camp so I have no axe to grind one way or the other.

                          An explanation to why he hid his name has been given hundreds of times.
                          Several explanations have been given, yours more than most, but does an explanation become more believable just because it is oft repeated?
                          I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                          Comment


                          • G'day Fisherman

                            Llewellyn said that she died at the very earliest around 3.40,
                            But what about Paul's belief that she was still alive when Cross took him to her? If Paul was right then that all fits, she was left for dead, but took a short while to expire.
                            G U T

                            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                            Comment


                            • if the police had realized that Lechmere was alone with the victim for an unknown period of time, that there was nobody leaving the spot, whereafter Nichols was found dead and Llewellyn said that she died at the very earliest around 3.40, something that was followed by the false name and the Mizen scam, then they WOULD have charged him with murder.


                              Like it or not, but it is a very useful court case, based on circumstantial evidence.
                              Point by point:
                              Lechmere was with Nichols for an unknown period of time
                              and therefore there is nothing to counter the explanation given by Lechmere as to how long he had been there. There is no evidence as to how long Lechmere had been there except his own account.
                              There was nobody leaving the spot.
                              No-one was seen by either Lechmere or Paul. That doesn't mean that an unknown killer had not doubled back onto Winthrop Street. The only thing it does mean is that, insofar as is possible in the circumstances, Paul corroborates what Lechmere says.
                              Nichols was found dead.
                              By Lechmere - according to Lechmere. So he may have been telling the truth - or he may have been lying. What we can't do is square the circle by saying that he could have been lying, therefore he was lying - because he was the killer.
                              Llewellyn said that she died at the very earliest around 3.40
                              And the key word in that statement is 'around'.
                              something that was followed by the false name
                              The 'false' name being that of his former stepfather - so not really 'false' at all.
                              and the Mizen scam
                              Has the so-called Mizen scam now become proven fact then, Fish? In your Rip article you conceded that it was no more than one of two possibilities. I know which of the two you prefer to believe, but that doesn't make it any more than your preferred interpretation of the facts.
                              then they WOULD have charged him with murder.
                              Mercifully they had more sense than to do so. They would never have secured a conviction.
                              Like it or not, but it is a very useful court case, based on circumstantial evidence.
                              WHAT? It is nothing of the kind. Reasonable cause to suspect, even if you think it amounts to that, is a long way from being sufficient evidence to charge, let alone convict. You don't hang a man on suspicion, however sincerely held.
                              I spent 13 years as a Custody Sergeant evaluating the sufficiency or otherwise of evidence. Charles Allen Lechmere - Refused Charge. That doesn't mean that he cannot have been guilty, but there is no evidence that he was anything other than what he claimed to be. Don't take my word for it (I'm sure you won't!). Ask any criminal lawyer of your acquaintance whether or not a man could be convicted and hanged on what we know of Lechmere and the Nichols murder. You don't hang a man on circumstantial evidence and certainly not when the known facts are consistent with his own account.
                              Last edited by Bridewell; 10-27-2014, 03:52 PM.
                              I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                              Comment


                              • G'day Bridewell

                                Mercifully they had more sense than to do so. They would never have secured a conviction.
                                Or even a committal, in my opinion.

                                The only thing I could see a charge securing would be a reprimand for whoever filed the charges. IF I was briefed to prosecute, on the "evidence" we have I would contact the head of prosecutions and have a word about certain Solicitors wasting taxpayers money on cases bound to fail.

                                Does this mean that Cross wasn't the man, no simply that there is just not enough evidence. But that applies to a whole slew of suspects.
                                G U T

                                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X