Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Rainbow]

You can't believe that Lechmere killed Nichols and went with Paul looking for a policeman



but you accept Bury as the ripper , although he also went to the police by his own free will to make a story and lie to them...



he he he

[Rainbow]

maybe Lechmere was cutting Nichols to the bone while you are still looking where was Bury and what the hell he was doing at 3:40 a.m. that morning...

[John Wheat]

One should go to Milan more often - a really nice city. Arriving back, one notes that not much changes. Take this thread, for in stance!

To be perfectly honest, not much of interest has been said at all. It´s all rehashing, and this who see through that are the only ones who have been able to produce something of value. Like Mr Lucky, who says: "..rational arguments based on evidence and tried reasoning ... (is) ...not going to work as this thread demonstrates."

...and who follows up with the astonishing and astonishingly true observation about: "...the primary axioms maintained by the ripper industry regarding the Buck's-row murder since the 70's

A. The murders were done by someone who wasn't there.
B. Everyone is lying except Charlie Cross, the man who was there and lied about his name."

That´s the long and the short of things. But when Steve takes a look at it, he arrives at the conclusion that people reading the thread have been subjected to the outrageous demands that:

"1. Lechmere is guilty.

2. lechmere is guilty and everyone must agree, it is not open to debate.

3. Lechmere is guilty, if anyone disagrees and gives arguments against they are fools with closed minds."

We cannot have that, can we?

Of course we can´t!

So here´s the revised version:

1. Lechmere is very probably guilty.

2. Lechmere is very probably guilty, but everybody does not have to agree, since any- and everybody is allowed to draw their conclusions on more or less good grounds. People who used to deduce that the world is flat were allowed to think so as long as they had not been proven wrong. The exact same applies here.

3. Lechmere is very probably guilty, if anyone disagrees and give arguments against they are probably not very well read up on the case or they are not weighing the facts in a logical manner.

Fair´s fair.

One small problem with all that is there is nothing to even indicate Lechmere might be guilty let alone any proof.

[John Wheat]

Hello John,

>>I like your quote on your posts. However my question is when has an expert ever actually bolstered the Lechmere theory?<<

The quote is what Fisherman wrote, so the label "expert" was his. In that specific case he was talking Arthur Ingrams in his "Conspiracy" television show.

What staggered me about the quote, and it goes to what I just wrote in the previous post about focus and obsession, is that if Fish hears something that suits his theory he said he has no interest in cross checking to see if it is actually true.

I know it's Fisherman's quote Dusty. I'm well aware of Fisherman's flaws he twists things, embellishes things and down right lies to back up his pet theory.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

One should go to Milan more often - a really nice city. Arriving back, one notes that not much changes. Take this thread, for in stance!

To be perfectly honest, not much of interest has been said at all. It´s all rehashing, and this who see through that are the only ones who have been able to produce something of value. Like Mr Lucky, who says: "..rational arguments based on evidence and tried reasoning ... (is) ...not going to work as this thread demonstrates."

...and who follows up with the astonishing and astonishingly true observation about: "...the primary axioms maintained by the ripper industry regarding the Buck's-row murder since the 70's

A. The murders were done by someone who wasn't there.
B. Everyone is lying except Charlie Cross, the man who was there and lied about his name."

That´s the long and the short of things. But when Steve takes a look at it, he arrives at the conclusion that people reading the thread have been subjected to the outrageous demands that:

"1. Lechmere is guilty.

2. lechmere is guilty and everyone must agree, it is not open to debate.

3. Lechmere is guilty, if anyone disagrees and gives arguments against they are fools with closed minds."

We cannot have that, can we?

Of course we can´t!

So here´s the revised version:

1. Lechmere is very probably guilty.

2. Lechmere is very probably guilty, but everybody does not have to agree, since any- and everybody is allowed to draw their conclusions on more or less good grounds. People who used to deduce that the world is flat were allowed to think so as long as they had not been proven wrong. The exact same applies here.

3. Lechmere is very probably guilty, if anyone disagrees and give arguments against they are probably not very well read up on the case or they are not weighing the facts in a logical manner.

Fair´s fair.

[drstrange169]

Hello John,

>>I like your quote on your posts. However my question is when has an expert ever actually bolstered the Lechmere theory?<<

The quote is what Fisherman wrote, so the label "expert" was his. In that specific case he was talking Arthur Ingrams in his "Conspiracy" television show.

What staggered me about the quote, and it goes to what I just wrote in the previous post about focus and obsession, is that if Fish hears something that suits his theory he said he has no interest in cross checking to see if it is actually true.

[drstrange169]

I despise the term ripperologist. To me it glorifies a women abuser and callous murderer. As I noted earlier, the people, their history and their environment are what draws me in.

The other day Debra Arif discovered some information on Ada Wilson a woman lost in history, LOVE that stuff.

I guess, if the name has any coinage value, suspect driven people could more accurately be called ripperolgists as the killer is their main focus. And focus can so easily lead to obsession.

[Elamarna]

Look you've turned up with your rational arguments based on evidence and tried reasoning with ripperologist, people who by definition have a irrational belief system. It's not going to work as this thread demonstrates.

Let's briefly look at the primary axioms maintained by the ripper industry regarding the Buck's-row murder since the 70's

A. The murders were done by someone who wasn't there.
B. Everyone is lying except Charlie Cross, the man who was there and lied about his name.

Once someone accepts this and becomes a ripperologist they are beyond reasoning with, and quite simply you, I and everyone else is wasting their time trying.



There are some exceptions, but 90% simply are not worth the effort.

Why is it that people who do not agree with your view point are deemed to have an "irrational belief system" and "beyond reasoning"

And of course they are Ripperologists and you are not.

The view expounded in the last few pages on this particular thread by the proponents of Lechmere has been:


1. Lechmere is guilty.

2. lechmere is guilty and everyone must agree, it is not open to debate.

3. Lechmere is guilty, if anyone disagrees and gives arguments against they are fools with closed minds.

Compare this to the sensible DEBATE last week with Fisherman over bloodflow.

At the end of which despite my still not seeing Lech as the killer, a degree on common ground was reached.


Steve

[Mr Lucky]

at a murder scene.. while the victim was still bleeding, at the time of death too

I don't care if he has one child or eleven, I don't care if he gave his real name or a false one, I don't care if he has a motive or not, if he lived happily ever after or not.....he is the prime suspect till he clear himself infront of a court

Look you've turned up with your rational arguments based on evidence and tried reasoning with ripperologist, people who by definition have a irrational belief system. It's not going to work as this thread demonstrates.

Let's briefly look at the primary axioms maintained by the ripper industry regarding the Buck's-row murder since the 70's

A. The murders were done by someone who wasn't there.
B. Everyone is lying except Charlie Cross, the man who was there and lied about his name.

Once someone accepts this and becomes a ripperologist they are beyond reasoning with, and quite simply you, I and everyone else is wasting their time trying.

thank you Damaso and Abby for being rational

There are some exceptions, but 90% simply are not worth the effort.

[Columbo]

I think you could accurately describe her as freshly bleeding. I mean she was still bleeding from the neck wound when the cops looked at her.

Yes blood was still coming out but I think the huge debate over oozing or flowing has put that into question. Was it old blood building up and oozing out or was it still bleeding from the pressure of the faded heartbeats?

Columbo

[Abby Normal]

Don't invent facts. There is no proof she was "freshly bleeding".

Columbo

I think you could accurately describe her as freshly bleeding. I mean she was still bleeding from the neck wound when the cops looked at her.

[John Wheat]

Lechmere was not a witness, thats what you want to think, but this is simply not true...

Lechmere was a man who has been seen by the true witness Paul , standing by a fresh bleeding murdered woman

don't change the facts..

I'm not changing the facts. History regards Lechmere as a witness. Unless you or any of the other Lechmere boys can give a good reason why the killer hadn't left the scene anywhere up to half an hour before Lechmere arrived. Then don't accuse me of changing the facts.

[Columbo]

>>Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.<<


As did Davis, Diemshitz, Watkins and Bowyer with their respective bodies and all accused at some stage of being Jtr.


>>Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.<<


A. There is some doubt that all the abdominal wounds were covered.

B. Mrs Nichols was the only victim recorded as wearing stays, this means a different modus was necessary.

C. The neck wound was not covered, which demolishes this particular theory.


>>Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away!...<<

P.C.’s Thain and Neil wore wooden soled shoes and walked at a regulated pace. It is an accepted fact that a policeman’s tread was recognisable.


>>Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street ...<<

There is no evidence that Xmere walked along Bath Street.


>>Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body...<<

It is not a fact that Mizen saw her bleeding from the neck when he first arrived.


>>Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” ...<<

Negated by the above answer.


>>Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so...<<

A. Xmere drew Paul’s attention to the body, allowed him to examine around the neck area making the above point nonsensical.

B. The only reason we know this story is because Xmere volunteered the information. Not the actions of a guilty man surely?


>>Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case....<<

A. How do we know what the other witnesses wore wasn’t their work clothes?

B. How could the “family” not know the name Cross? How could the family not recognise 22 Doveton Street as their home?


>>Number 9: Lechmere´s fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street...<<

Since we don't know where Xmere entered the Broad Street depot, it is impossible to talk about fastest routes or indeed whether he actual went down any street other than the ones he mentions at the inquest.


>>Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords ...<<

See next answer.


>>Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night...<<

If Xmere was not at work, point Number10 cannot be true.


>>Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East ...<<

Assuming Stride was a victim of the same murderer.


Number 13: ... if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home...<<

Doveton Street is east not north of Maryanne Street.


>>Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others ...<<

A. Depending on whom you believe, Mary Kelly was murdered close the time of Catherine eddowes murder or after Mrs Nichols.

B. Dr Phillips believed Cathrine Eddowes to have been murder by someone else.


>>Number 15: ... his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charles´ father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man...<<

How many East End families experienced similar conditions?


>>Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities...<<

A. Was the use of the name Cross illegal at the inquest?

B. Was the name Lechmere more relevant and/or legally binding on those other occasions?

C. How many of the 110 instances were simply repeat forms filled by another hand?


>>Number 17: Charles Lechmere´s family came to be involved in the horse flesh business...<<

By “came to be” do you mean after the jtr murders? If so, how is this relevant?


>>Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.<<

Can you suppy us with exact details so we can cross check this allegation?


>>Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm ...<<

What alarm should he have raised? Even after examining the body, neither man believed a murder had been committed.


>>Number 20: ...<<

This has been dealt with in detail elsewhere. The balance of probabilities are that Xmere’s version was the correct one.


>>Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent ...<<

If the two men saw the same thing, wouldn’t it be even stranger if they did not tell the same story?


>>Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him...<<

Prove that statement to be a correct one.


>>Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nichols´ neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though. Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?<<

And if Xmere disturbed the killer wouldn’t it be exactly the same?


>>Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route ...<<

Again you make an unverifiable statement about an alleged fastest route. There is no evidence Xmere ever went down Old Montague Street. The only streets we can verify are the ones mentioned at the inquest.


>>Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmere´s life... <<

Charles Lechmere didn’t lack a father figure growing up, he had one and his name was Cross.


>>Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest...<<

“Seems” is a very vague word to build a case on.


>>Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmere´s logical old working route from James Street ...<<

Even if we assume he worked at Broad Street when he lived in James Street, which we can't, no, it wasn’t the shortest route.


>>Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a cat´s meat woman ...<<

A when did this Cat’s meat business start and what exactly did it entail? Are you now claiming Mrs Cross was the killer?


>>Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.<<

And according to the newspapers, people carried sacks around the area.


>>Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning...<<

Xmere’s timings are in sync with three policemen and Baxter’s inquest summation. The only discord comes from the Lloyds Weekly’s article about Paul, an article known to be inaccurate and Paul did not repeat the 3:45 timing under oath.


>>Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.<<

If you believe the Lloyds article to be accurate, as you suggest in the last point, then you have to accept that Paul did talk to Mizen and Mizen’s story was incorrect.

Well done.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Lechmere was not a witness, thats what you want to think, but this is simply not true...

Lechmere was a man who has been seen by the true witness Paul , standing by a fresh bleeding murdered woman

don't change the facts..

Don't invent facts. There is no proof she was "freshly bleeding".

Columbo

[Elamarna]

>>Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.<<


As did Davis, Diemshitz, Watkins and Bowyer with their respective bodies and all accused at some stage of being Jtr.


>>Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.<<


A. There is some doubt that all the abdominal wounds were covered.

B. Mrs Nichols was the only victim recorded as wearing stays, this means a different modus was necessary.

C. The neck wound was not covered, which demolishes this particular theory.


>>Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away!...<<

P.C.’s Thain and Neil wore wooden soled shoes and walked at a regulated pace. It is an accepted fact that a policeman’s tread was recognisable.


>>Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street ...<<

There is no evidence that Xmere walked along Bath Street.


>>Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body...<<

It is not a fact that Mizen saw her bleeding from the neck when he first arrived.


>>Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” ...<<

Negated by the above answer.


>>Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so...<<

A. Xmere drew Paul’s attention to the body, allowed him to examine around the neck area making the above point nonsensical.

B. The only reason we know this story is because Xmere volunteered the information. Not the actions of a guilty man surely?


>>Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case....<<

A. How do we know what the other witnesses wore wasn’t their work clothes?

B. How could the “family” not know the name Cross? How could the family not recognise 22 Doveton Street as their home?


>>Number 9: Lechmere´s fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street...<<

Since we don't know where Xmere entered the Broad Street depot, it is impossible to talk about fastest routes or indeed whether he actual went down any street other than the ones he mentions at the inquest.


>>Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords ...<<

See next answer.


>>Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night...<<

If Xmere was not at work, point Number10 cannot be true.


>>Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East ...<<

Assuming Stride was a victim of the same murderer.


Number 13: ... if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home...<<

Doveton Street is east not north of Maryanne Street.


>>Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others ...<<

A. Depending on whom you believe, Mary Kelly was murdered close the time of Catherine eddowes murder or after Mrs Nichols.

B. Dr Phillips believed Cathrine Eddowes to have been murder by someone else.


>>Number 15: ... his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charles´ father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man...<<

How many East End families experienced similar conditions?


>>Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities...<<

A. Was the use of the name Cross illegal at the inquest?

B. Was the name Lechmere more relevant and/or legally binding on those other occasions?

C. How many of the 110 instances were simply repeat forms filled by another hand?


>>Number 17: Charles Lechmere´s family came to be involved in the horse flesh business...<<

By “came to be” do you mean after the jtr murders? If so, how is this relevant?


>>Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.<<

Can you suppy us with exact details so we can cross check this allegation?


>>Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm ...<<

What alarm should he have raised? Even after examining the body, neither man believed a murder had been committed.


>>Number 20: ...<<

This has been dealt with in detail elsewhere. The balance of probabilities are that Xmere’s version was the correct one.


>>Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent ...<<

If the two men saw the same thing, wouldn’t it be even stranger if they did not tell the same story?


>>Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him...<<

Prove that statement to be a correct one.


>>Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nichols´ neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though. Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?<<

And if Xmere disturbed the killer wouldn’t it be exactly the same?


>>Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route ...<<

Again you make an unverifiable statement about an alleged fastest route. There is no evidence Xmere ever went down Old Montague Street. The only streets we can verify are the ones mentioned at the inquest.


>>Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmere´s life... <<

Charles Lechmere didn’t lack a father figure growing up, he had one and his name was Cross.


>>Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest...<<

“Seems” is a very vague word to build a case on.


>>Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmere´s logical old working route from James Street ...<<

Even if we assume he worked at Broad Street when he lived in James Street, which we can't, no, it wasn’t the shortest route.


>>Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a cat´s meat woman ...<<

A when did this Cat’s meat business start and what exactly did it entail? Are you now claiming Mrs Cross was the killer?


>>Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.<<

And according to the newspapers, people carried sacks around the area.


>>Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning...<<

Xmere’s timings are in sync with three policemen and Baxter’s inquest summation. The only discord comes from the Lloyds Weekly’s article about Paul, an article known to be inaccurate and Paul did not repeat the 3:45 timing under oath.


>>Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.<<

If you believe the Lloyds article to be accurate, as you suggest in the last point, then you have to accept that Paul did talk to Mizen and Mizen’s story was incorrect.

Love the response, lots of nice detail, that mine was lacking.

regards


Steve