Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Defective Detective]

An idea for a small series of polls I had comparing suspects of the same general 'type', in this case witnesses whose testimony has been called into question by future generations of Ripperologists.

Which of the two is more plausible as a suspect?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I'm not saying the poll is wrong, but two things are strange:

1- We're talking about witnesses of different crimes.
2- One discovered a body, the other saw a suspect. Before vs after. I'm guessing discovering a dead person has much more impact on someone's memory than seeing someone before you even know a crime is about to happen.


For me, the best witness category would be the Fiddymont / Chappell / Taylor type. (not saying they actually saw the ripper)

[lynn cates]

ripperologist

Hello Sir John.

"We're talking about witnesses of different crimes."

This shows deep insight. Absolutely.

"For me, the best witness category would be the Fiddymont /Chappell / Taylor type. (not saying they actually saw the ripper)"

Precisely.

My friend, you should be a ripperologist.

Cheers.
LC

[Ghost]

The Lechmere case is mostly speculation. But my impression is that it's sensible speculation. If I were a detective at the time but with the knowledge and research of today, he would definitely be a suspect for me.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hello Sir John.

"We're talking about witnesses of different crimes."

This shows deep insight. Absolutely.

"For me, the best witness category would be the Fiddymont /Chappell / Taylor type. (not saying they actually saw the ripper)"

Precisely.

My friend, you should be a ripperologist.

Cheers.
LC

Thank you Lynn. I'm quite happy being a pataphysician.

[Bridewell]

Cross/Lechmere is the more plausible for the Nichols murder but Hutchinson is the better candidate for Kelly.

[Cogidubnus]

I'm sorry, perhaps my answer is unacceptable, but I can't say I find either a particularly convincing suspect for any of the crimes.

Perhaps I'm naively old-fashioned, but I still can't see Crossmere as anything but a witness to the finding of a body, nor can I see Hutch as anything but an attention seeking wannabee...

Sorry

Dave

[Rosella]

Same here! Probably Cadosch was the nearest witness to an actual murder by Jack and only heard a word "No!"

I have to say that the vast array of suspects has an underwhelming effect on me as well, probably because I strongly suspect that Jack was a local who was never under serious suspicion, a sad and pathetic individual who lived and died in the East End and whose name is known only to God.

[lynn cates]

good sense

Hello Colin. As usual, you show uncommon good sense.

Cheers.
LC

[RockySullivan]

I think both lechmere & hutch should've been poi's at the time. Paul's first instinct was to give lechmere a "wider berth" so he probably had a bad feeling about hutch. I read that Lechmere put his hand on Paul's shoulder and says "come look at this woman". That does seem spooky to me and if I was paul that might be enough to send me running. But what I don't get is....in Paul's inquest testimony he says he goes for a policemen alone. What? This is not the version I am familiar with where Lechmere and him go talk to the cop together? Also Lechmere says he didn't hear Paul's footsteps right....so from the reverse point of view....whose to say Paul wasn't hiding in the shadows once he heard Lechmere approach? That doesn't seem likely....I do think Lechmere at the very least would scare me if I saw him with a dead woman late at night.

Hutch is real suspicious....he's a john Mary Kelly solicits...he stalks Mary Kelly...he bends down to look the ripper in the face...he waits outside Kelly's for 40 minutes.....all of this makes him looks real bad. But hutch is most likely a john....what if he actually accepted Mary's offer and made up the rest. I don't see a guy stooping down to look a man in the face then watching from outside unless he's a voyeur and he watched the man & Mary Kelly do business. Does this make him more likely to be the ripper? I just don't get hutch....

[Ghost]

I should say POI, perhaps, rather than suspect. Someone who warranted further investigation and probably would nowadays.

[GUT]

I should say POI, perhaps, rather than suspect. Someone who warranted further investigation and probably would nowadays.

But, given the amount of material available to us [or rather lack thereof] I don't get why everyone assumes that they weren't investigated. Hutch was questioned in detail, the only reason that some think Cross wasn't investigated was that the material we have available refers to him as Cross not as Lechmere.

Now I am no apologist for the police far from it, but I believe that the police would have made these enquiries.

[Rosella]

My take on Hutchinson is that he fancied Mary, had been a client of hers probably several times, and hung around outside Miller's Court for a long time that day in the hope that the astrakhan man would go after an hour or so. Mary, then probably tipsy if not drunk and well-paid, would take pity on him waiting outside in bad weather and maybe allow him a freebie in her nice warm bed.

Sometimes things just don't necessarily have a sinister intent. There is no evidence that Hutchinson disliked/hated Mary or looked down on her. After a long wait he was disappointed as neither Mary nor client came out again. He probably walked off thinking 'Oh, well, when I get a bit of money...'

[Hatchett]

Hi Rosella,

That is a perfectly reasonable take on things. I imagine that Abberline thought very much the same.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

But, given the amount of material available to us [or rather lack thereof] I don't get why everyone assumes that they weren't investigated. Hutch was questioned in detail, the only reason that some think Cross wasn't investigated was that the material we have available refers to him as Cross not as Lechmere.

Now I am no apologist for the police far from it, but I believe that the police would have made these enquiries.

Then you have to come up with an explanation as to why the police never found out what his true name was. Itīs really as simple as that. The police were under the impression that he was named Cross. Is there any perceivable way in which they could have missed out on his real name if they investigated him? No, there is not.
Of course they would have questioned him - but not thoroughly enough to find out what he was called.

There is a reason for their ommission: he came forward out of his own free will, not once but TWICE to seemingly help the police. That would have cemented that he was a good guy.

All the best,
Fisherman