Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[MrBarnett]

MrBarnett:

Fish has doggedly stuck to his idea that the killings all took place within 30 yds of Lech's work routes. Hence the idea of a 'short cut' through Dorset Street. The theory looks good on a map, I suppose. But I don't think it's necessarily any more damning than Hutch being an essentially homeless man whose known temporary residence is slap bang in the epicentre of events.

Doesn't strike me as a gross misrepresentation of your views.

But it is! Whitechapel Road - where I think Nichols may have been picked up - is decidedly not within 30 yards. And I have never said that I think they must have been approached on the streets where they were killed! You have Edward down for one view and me for a "dogged" resistance to the idea that any of the victims could have been picked up in some other place than where they died. And it id dead wrong - Edward and I do not differ materially in any way on this.

Thanks for the Long statement. Sounds like the pavement outside 29,Hanbury street was heaving. Wonder why he chose such a busy spot?

The answer is simple - it wasn´t that busy at 3.30.

The best,
Fisherman

No point in labouring this, but you are the one who thinks it significant that the killings are almost directly on his route. You made the 30 yds claim. But you are apparently also ready to accept that his route could be altered to enable him to locate a victim. It seems to me that if Lech was innocent, he would probably have decided on his best route shortly after moving to Doveton Street and stuck to it. If he was guilty on the other hand, he would be on the look out for victims and would make detours to see what was on offer. Either way, no neat v on the map.

So Mrs Long's statement is not relevant to the time we are discussing? Why bring it up, then?

Cheers,

MrB

[Hatchett]

Hi all,

Dont you think it is highly unlikely that either of these are the killer? They were both investigated by the Police at the time. The police were under increasingly very high pressure to find the culprit.

Also for a killer that had reached such prominance as a National terror to have killed on his route to work is really very unlikely.

There is nothing against Hutch at all.

I really think that if we are serious in trying to find a reasonable suspect we have to look elsewhere.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: No point in labouring this, but you are the one who thinks it significant that the killings are almost directly on his route.

No point in labouring it? Of course there is! I have told you over and over again that you are giving the wrong picture of what I think, so there is every point in labouring it.

You made the 30 yds claim.

I never made the claim that all victims were approached by the killer within 30 yards (that´s your invention, that you don´t think needs any further labouring) - I made the claim that they were all found dead within that distance from Lechmere´s treks.

But you are apparently also ready to accept that his route could be altered to enable him to locate a victim.

No, I am not "ready" to accept it - I have spoken up for the possibility for years, and long before you joined the boards.

It seems to me that if Lech was innocent, he would probably have decided on his best route shortly after moving to Doveton Street and stuck to it.

I see no reason at all to predispose such a thing. It is entirely up to how close the routes were distancewise and what kind of person he was. Some like change, some don´t care for it.

If he was guilty on the other hand, he would be on the look out for victims and would make detours to see what was on offer. Either way, no neat v on the map.

He would make detours IF THERE WAS A NEED. If there were prostitutes readily avilable on the roads he walked, then why make any detours?
IF, that is - before you start thinking that I am "painting myself into a corner" again!!!

So Mrs Long's statement is not relevant to the time we are discussing? Why bring it up, then?

Mrs Longs statement tells us that Hanbury Street was a street where prostitutes solicited men, unlike what you believed. I don´t think they would have stayed away from it between 3 and 4 AM - but I do think that they would have been a lot fewer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

Fisherman, in that last post to me, you hit the nail on the head: There is inconclusive data available when it comes to Crossmere as a suspect. We don't know whether he had any kind of criminal past, we don't know if he why would've stopped killing, if he was the Ripper. Therefore, in absence of his evidence, you should be able to see why it's absurd for someone like yourself to jump to the conclusion that he WAS our man, and that the police "probably would've charged him" had he been taken in. So you're essentially taking those gaps and performing huge leaps of faith, which contradicts this assertion of yours that you're only interested in the cold, hard truth.

Compare and contrast him to someone like Jacob Levy. Another local in the area, had the necessary skill/knowledge, was mentally unhinged, was prone to wandering around at night, was connected to one of the witnesses (and a shifty one at that), was sent to asylum around the time the murders stopped. Now THAT'S someone with legitimate cause to be considered an exceptional suspect. And I'm not arguing that Levy categorically WAS the Ripper, but if it wasn't Joe Bloggs, then Levy is as good as it gets. Crossmere? Not even close.

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

Hi all,

Dont you think it is highly unlikely that either of these are the killer? They were both investigated by the Police at the time.

... to an extent where the police failed to get the real name of the carman, yes. Bravo!

Also for a killer that had reached such prominance as a National terror to have killed on his route to work is really very unlikely.

Why? How would the police have an inkling about what was going on? And how on earth does his status as a national terror affect how he could have killed...? Do national terrors only kill on their spare time?

There is nothing against Hutch at all.

Sorry, but there is a little something (to think that I should be the one to claim that...!)

I really think that if we are serious in trying to find a reasonable suspect we have to look elsewhere.

Yeah, you are probably right. Why regard a man that was found alone by a freshly killed victim, and who concealed his identity and conned the police as a reasonable suspect? That would be outright dumb, wouldn´t it?

Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi Fish,

Dont forget that man was interviewed by the Police and allowed to go.

Also I said nothing about the manner of killing. But a bird does not defecate in its own nest. Nearby maybe, but not in its nest.

Hutch too was interviewed by the police.

But tell me ... what actual evidence is there against either of them?

I would be pleased to know.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Fisherman, in that last post to me, you hit the nail on the end: There is inconclusive data available when it comes to Crossmere as a suspect.

So you have finally seen the light? You have finally grown to realize that I am not - as you usually claim - saying that it is a fact that he was the killer. It took some time, but it was worth the wait!

We don't know whether he had any kind of criminal past, we don't know if he why would've stopped killing, if he was the Ripper.

Marvellous. And so, so true!

Therefore, in absence of his evidence, you should be able to see why it's absurd for someone like yourself to jump to the conclusion that he WAS our man, and that the police "probably would've charged him" had been taken in.

Ooops - now it went awry again. I have not jumped to the conclusion that he was the man - I have slowly reached the position that he was very probably our man.
And that is something that is very much possible to do on circumstantial evidence only. Thousands of killers have been convicted on circumstantial evidence, and it applies in their cases too that the data has been inconclusive. But it has nevertheless been damning enough to justify both a trial and a conviction.

So you're essentially taking those gaps and performing huge leaps of faith, which contradicts this assertion of yours that you're only interested in the cold, hard truth.

No, it does not. Creating a scenario with the use of a number of points that bolster it is not in any shape or form to distance yourself from the truth. As long as you clearly state that parts of a scenario is conjecture - and it WILL be, in any theory of the Rippers name - you can be onehundred per cent a seeker of the truth.

The policemen that hunted down the Green River killer did not have conclusive evidence until very late in the process. Are you saying that their suggested scenario for the murders was not created in search of the truth? Then you need to think again. Or once.

Compare and contrast him to someone like Jacob Levy.

Yes, I´d love to do that!

Another local in the area - My guess is that there were more.

had the necessary skill/knowledge - to do WHAT? Perform surgery? There is zero evidence that the Ripper had any knowledge at all about butchery.

was mentally unhinged - he was a total nutter, and he would not have been able to kill these victims undetected. Furthermore, most serialists are NOT mentally unhinged, but instead fit to plea. Levy was not.

was prone to wandering around at night - Then it MUST have been Issenschmid. Or Lechmere, who walked the streets EVERY night, walking to his job.

was connected to one of the witnesses - how is that damning?

was sent to asylum around the time the murders stopped - they were FULL, the asylums. That´s because people were sent there in heaps.

Now THAT'S someone with legitimate cause to be considered an exceptional suspect. And I'm not arguing that Levy categorically WAS the Ripper, but if it wasn't Joe Bloggs, then Levy is as good as it gets. Crossmere? Not even close.

Go to a policeman, if you can find one. Preferably a murder squad man. List the damning evidence against Jacob Levy.

Then tell him that ANOTHER man was found alone with one of the murder victims, and that we cannot be sure how long time he had spent with theat victim.

Then ask him which guy he would go for.

That´s all I am asking, Harry - do that, and see what happens. What we have on Levy is about as damning as having red cheeks and earlobes.

You need to get a pair too.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

Hi Fish,

Dont forget that man was interviewed by the Police and allowed to go.

What makes you think I forgot it? Of course he was questioned - but not close enough to find out his identity. That tells the story, once we are ready to listen. A great many aren´t.

Also I said nothing about the manner of killing. But a bird does not defecate in its own nest. Nearby maybe, but not in its nest.

How would the police know it was somebody´s nest?

Hutch too was interviewed by the police.

But tell me ... what actual evidence is there against either of them?

I would be pleased to know.

Read post 113 on this thread. It contains most - but not all! - evidence against Lechmere.

Hutch? You can dump him, he wasn´t the guy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi Fish,

What you are talking about is not evidence at all!

Lechemere gave a wrong name. So what?

There has to be someone to find a body. Considering that all the victims were found by someone does that mean that are five, six, seven, eight killers?

I accept your right to have a suspect, but you have to aceept that I or anyone can disagree with you suspect ... because at the end of the day at present there is no evidence against anyone.

But I would say that people who were interviewed with the Police have to be the least likely.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

What you are talking about is not evidence at all!

Lechemere gave a wrong name. So what?

There has to be someone to find a body. Considering that all the victims were found by someone does that mean that are five, six, seven, eight killers?

I accept your right to have a suspect, but you have to aceept that I or anyone can disagree with you suspect ... because at the end of the day at present there is no evidence against anyone.

But I would say that people who were interviewed with the Police have to be the least likely.

Did you read post 113? No, you did not.

Nighty, night!
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Yes, I did.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Christer

Jon! I won´t waste what little time I have left this evening by answering all points - Malmö FF are due to play Atletico Madrid tonight, and that is more important to somebody born and bred in Malmö.

How did Malmo get on ?

Alice McKenzie ?
"Blood flowed from two stabs in the left side of her neck and her skirts had been lifted, revealing blood across her abdomen, which had been mutilated."

The scoring and cuts of skin on pubis were caused through the endeavour to pass the obstruction caused by the tight fitting clothing over the abdomen. The clothing was fastened round the body somewhat tightly and only could be raised so as to expose about one-third of the abdomen. MEPO 3/140 ff 263-71

Didn`t one of them tell Mizen she was drunk or dead ?
Have a look and see if you can find it, Jon! You may be surprised. If you are wrong, correct your stance accordingly, please!

Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on.Daily Tel 4th Sept 88

The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right."
Daily News 4th Sept 88

He was seen approaching the body.
I would need to see the evidence for that, unless you mean that Paul kept his eyes open as the two crossed the street together.

When Paul noticed Cross in the middle of the road, that`s when Cross was approaching the body. He certainly wasn`t seen retreating from the body, looking like he was concealing a knife or wiping his hands.

Do you consider people being found alone nearby murder victims as suspects until otherwise proven?.

No, they `re innocent until proven guilty, or, they remain a witness until facts propel them towards being a suspect.

Used to do that shift myself, and no matter how much sleep I got, getting up at 3am in the dark is ****, and I was half asleep, even when I was late.
So that means that Paul must have been the same? Or??.

....or maybe not, but you are not allowing for the fact that it was 3.30 in the morning and many people trudging to work in the gloom are not as alert or attentive as you apparently are.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Christer.

"Then it MUST have been Isenschmid."

Ah! One of your rare gems! You finally got it right.

Cheers.
LC

[Westbourne Wink]

What I find most perplexing is how ready everyone is to say PC Mizen lied so as to dismiss that Lechmere lied.

PC Mizen served for 20 years and had an exemplary record.

Now we're meant to be believe he started making up crucial lies about key witnesses in the heat of manhunt for a brutal serial killer - all so he could hide the fact he was knocking up, for a minute... and it was a minute at most because he did make his way to the scene and was there very shortly after PC Neil.

No, it's much more likely any knocking up he did would have been purely because he'd been mis-sold the situation by Lechmere.

PC Mizen can be a good, ordinary, bad, terrible policeman, it doesn't actually matter - any policeman, good or bad, that is told there was an unattended murder would react very differently to Mizen.

He would have stopped the two men, made them show him where it was and raised the alarm with some urgency. Instead, he strolls there.

And we are meant to believe this was because he was all because he was negligent??

The police were on heightened alert and a murder was a big deal, then, now and always. If Lechmere had told him the truth we'd have surely seen a very different reaction from PC Mizen.

Come the first day of the inquest PC Neil still thinks he had found the body. Do you not think that is a little strange seeing as PC Mizen and PC Neil saw each other on the night?? Do you not think that is a glaring piece of evidence that PC Mizen was lied to by Lechmere and told a policeman was already there - hence why he never corrected PC Neil?

You COULD ignore all these very powerful facts and claim that PC Mizen suddenly turned into the most negligent police officer of all time and ignored an urgent murder scene in favour of knocking up - or you could except his word, and he is very clear, that he was lied to.

I know which one I think makes sense.

[Rosella]

Why were the police on 'heightened alert' if this was the first murder of the series? Neither Paul nor Cross could properly see the injuries on Nichols in the gloom. They didn't know she was a murder victim.

Cross/Lechmere probably did lie. He may very well have thought "I'm late for work already! If I say there's a policeman there already he won't insist on me going back to the woman with him." Callous, but understandable.

Who knows, in that sort of locale both Mizen and Neill (until he saw the injuries by the light of his lamp) probably thought 'Drunk' or 'Suicide' or 'Vagrant death' at first. We are looking at things very much with the benefit of hindsight.