Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Phil Carter]

Hello Christer,

Something has occurred to me.
Replace Cross/Lechmere and this new information about a meat cart, delivery man etc with the name Kosminski...or even Druitt or Tumblety if you wish, but for now, Kosminski.

Now do you ever get the feeling that this meat carrying, knife carrying Kosminski would get the same poorly regarded attention as Cross/Lechmere does?

I venture to add my answer... not on your Nelly! BECAUSE they are the "suspects" named by policemen, albeit none of them on an official police document, THEIR weak theories are kept alive, like a wild pig on a spit. Meat? Knives? Wow! The promoters of all of them would be rewriting books, doing tv documentaries and films galore based on such connecting information.

It is to yours and Edwards credit imho that you stand by a viable suspect theory (because it is viable) and wait for some sort of "official" recognition by some person somewhere that will get the stamp of "suspect" approval for a person currently called just a witness.

Ever notice George Hutchinson was afforded the dual lable without much problem?

Its almost as if you arent allowed to gatecrash the party, isnt it?

I voted for Cross/Lechmere. I think Hutchinson had other fish to fry. IF that was his real name, of course.....

best regards from across the fjord :-)


Phil

[Lechmere]

Phil
Well when it was found that one of Kosminski's relatives lived further down from Berner Street it was seized upon as a major revelation connecting him to the Stride killing...

More than anything it is amusing to see the almost desperate endeavours to bestow the most incredible innocent explanations for various alternative guilty ones.
The possibility that Mizen may have been telling the truth CANNOT be conceded. The possibility that Lechmere was never known as Cross can NEVER be agreed to.
And so on.
Those are the lines that cannot be jumped!
And suspect sections can be crerated for all manner of outlandish suspects, some of whom have barely raised a thread - but never for Lechmere as that would bring down the edifice.

[GUT]

Phil
Well when it was found that one of Kosminski's relatives lived further down from Berner Street it was seized upon as a major revelation connecting him to the Stride killing...

More than anything it is amusing to see the almost desperate endeavours to bestow the most incredible innocent explanations for various alternative guilty ones.
The possibility that Mizen may have been telling the truth CANNOT be conceded. The possibility that Lechmere was never known as Cross can NEVER be agreed to.
And so on.
Those are the lines that cannot be jumped!
And suspect sections can be crerated for all manner of outlandish suspects, some of whom have barely raised a thread - but never for Lechmere as that would bring down the edifice.

G'day Lechmere

But doesn't the reverse also apply:


The possibility that Mizen may have NOT been telling the truth CANNOT be conceded. Maybe deliberately, maybe out of confusion maybe for some other reason, maybe he was just incompetent.

The possibility that Lechmere WAS known as Cross can NEVER be agreed to.

The fact that Cross gave all his other right details must be downplayed as a part of his scheme.

The fact that the police would almost certainly have made inquiries must be ignored.

[Rosella]

So, because Cross/Lechmere MAY have lied to Mizen that there was a policeman near Nichols' body, and he lived in the neighbourhood of the Ripper killings, he is inevitably a serial killer? Sorry, don't buy it.

By the way false names, nicknames were a dime a dozen in the East End at that time. There is nothing terribly sinister about it. Cross was the name of Lechmere's policeman stepfather. May be a sign of a black sense of humour on Lechmere's part when he gave that name!

[Fisherman]

G'day Lechmere

But doesn't the reverse also apply:


The possibility that Mizen may have NOT been telling the truth CANNOT be conceded. Maybe deliberately, maybe out of confusion maybe for some other reason, maybe he was just incompetent.

The possibility that Lechmere WAS known as Cross can NEVER be agreed to.

The fact that Cross gave all his other right details must be downplayed as a part of his scheme.

The fact that the police would almost certainly have made inquiries must be ignored.

No, Gut, that is not how it works. We have always kept the door open for it being the other way.

We have always - ALWAYS - said that it is the amount of evidence that brings Lechmere down. We have always conceded that every one of all the points against him CAN have alternative, innocent explanations. But we have said that there is a limit, there is a point when the donkeyīs back breaks, where we must admit that it would be silly to go looking for yet another excuse, no matter how far-fetched.

If you go back and look you will find us saying that yes, he COULD have been called Cross by his friends, BUT IT IS NOT THE BETTER GUESS.

You will find posts where we say that yes, Mizen could have gotten it wrong, BUT IT IS NOT THE MORE CREDIBLE EXPLANATION.

So donīt claim that we are not accepting or looking at other explanations than the sinister ones - we always do, but they are not always good explanations. And sometimes they are out and out silly.

Take Mizen, for example. You say that he could be lying, that he could be confused, that he could be incompetent.

Lechmere says that he and Paul spoke to Mizen. If he was the killer, he needed to take focus away from his having fed Mizen his lies with Paul out of earshot. He stood to gain from giving the inquest the picture of both him and Paul speaking to Mizen.

Mizen says that one man spoke to him. The coroner has to ask him if there was not another man around too before he remembers to mention Paul. One man spoke to Mizen, thatīs what he himself says.

One of these men is not telling it as it was. Who would that man be? Who had a reason to lie?

Answer me this:

Would Mizen lie about it, and if so: why?

Would he forget how many men it was that spoke to him? Is that credible?

As for his incompetence, he was given a very good grade after his service, the next best grade possible. He was a very competent policeman, Gut; it is on record.

But of course, you may say that he may have had a bad evening. Yes, he may - but it is never and can never be the best bid. It is an outside possibility, a freak shot. Again.

He lived a quiet life, Mizen, in a religious community. He was a church choir singer, and when he retired he went back home to care for his fathers farm. He did this admirably, and he became some sort of church warden in the village.
For all we know, he was an efficient, good, hard-working man who was given a very good service record as a copper when he took his leave.

Is that a man who would get all confused and get it all wrong? It could be, but is that the better guess? No, it is - once again - the outside, freak possibility that will always be there. He could have been drunk on the night in question, he could have suffered from migraine etcetera, etcetera. Outside possibilities, freak chances.

He only spoke very shortly to the carman. He is very clear about what was said. He does not waver, he does not say "I could not make out what he said".

The carman said that he was needed in Bucks Row, where another PC awaited him, and that a woman was lying in the street there.

If the carman had said "Hey, officer, me and my pal found this woman lying in the street down in Buckīs Row, and I think she may be dead or dying", then would Mizen let the men go without even asking for their names?

No, he would not. It was the lie about the other PC that took Lechmere past Mizen, otherwise he would not have been allowed to pass. And Mizens failure to come forward and correct Neil afterwards bears witness to this - it all fitted, but it only fitted if he had been lied to!

Once again, there ARE other possibilities, but none of them are even remotely as likely to be true as is the Mizen scam. If Mizen was not lied to, then he reacted very oddly, not hurrying to Bucks Row and not telling his superiors that Neil had it wrong.

If he WAS lied to, then he acted very logically, taking it easy down to Buckīs Row, knowing that a colleague had the situation in hand, and not complaining about Neil telling it as Mizen thought it was.

The game is up. It really is. We canīt prove it beyond doubt, but we CAN prove that it is the best guess by far.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer,

Something has occurred to me.
Replace Cross/Lechmere and this new information about a meat cart, delivery man etc with the name Kosminski...or even Druitt or Tumblety if you wish, but for now, Kosminski.

Now do you ever get the feeling that this meat carrying, knife carrying Kosminski would get the same poorly regarded attention as Cross/Lechmere does?

I venture to add my answer... not on your Nelly! BECAUSE they are the "suspects" named by policemen, albeit none of them on an official police document, THEIR weak theories are kept alive, like a wild pig on a spit. Meat? Knives? Wow! The promoters of all of them would be rewriting books, doing tv documentaries and films galore based on such connecting information.

It is to yours and Edwards credit imho that you stand by a viable suspect theory (because it is viable) and wait for some sort of "official" recognition by some person somewhere that will get the stamp of "suspect" approval for a person currently called just a witness.

Ever notice George Hutchinson was afforded the dual lable without much problem?

Its almost as if you arent allowed to gatecrash the party, isnt it?

I voted for Cross/Lechmere. I think Hutchinson had other fish to fry. IF that was his real name, of course.....

best regards from across the fjord :-)


Phil

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

[Fisherman]

Rosella: So, because Cross/Lechmere MAY have lied to Mizen that there was a policeman near Nichols' body, and he lived in the neighbourhood of the Ripper killings, he is inevitably a serial killer? Sorry, don't buy it.

Not really, no. Itīs to begin with not a question of an outside possibility that Lechmere lied - all the evidence very clearly tells us that he DID lie to the PC. He MAY not have, but that is just a very far-fetched, freak shot in the dark.

So, since we can see that the by far best option is that he lied about the other PC, we have only three alternatives as to WHY he did so:

1. Because he was the killer and wanted to get past the police, or

2. Because he was late for work, and decided that conning the PC was the best strategy to not miss out on too much working time. And he was willing to get hauled in the next working day by Mizen and to be raked over the coals, something that would inevitably make him loose out on his working time anyway, and that could potentially get him in deep, deep trouble if a crime lay behind the womanīs presence in Bucks Row.

3. He simply liked to lie to PC:s.

Take your own pick, Rosella. Which is the likelier alternative?

By the way false names, nicknames were a dime a dozen in the East End at that time. There is nothing terribly sinister about it. Cross was the name of Lechmere's policeman stepfather. May be a sign of a black sense of humour on Lechmere's part when he gave that name!

What did I tell you about freak possibilities...? We have more than a hundred examples of his contacts with different authorities. He ALWAYS goes as Lechmere on these occasions.

The police is an authority. Conclusion?

After that, do the math. If he would habitually call himself Cross once every hundred of his contacts with the aouthorities, then how big was the chance that this would be THE opportunity? Right: One in a hundred.

And how big a chance was there from the outset that he would play such a game? Oh, I forgot - he could have had a sense of black humour!

Well, hereīs MY sense of humour:
He did not tell Mizen his name.
When he lied about it, he was talking to an inquest.
If it was an expression of black humour, then it was an expression that could see him hang for it, after further investigations led on by his lie.

And how funny would that be?

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

No, Gut, that is not how it works. We have always kept the door open for it being the other way.

We have always - ALWAYS - said that it is the amount of evidence that brings Lechmere down. We have always conceded that every one of all the points against him CAN have alternative, innocent explanations. But we have said that there is a limit, there is a point when the donkeyīs back breaks, where we must admit that it would be silly to go looking for yet another excuse, no matter how far-fetched.

If you go back and look you will find us saying that yes, he COULD have been called Cross by his friends, BUT IT IS NOT THE BETTER GUESS.

Why isn't it the better guess, it is totally logical.

You will find posts where we say that yes, Mizen could have gotten it wrong, BUT IT IS NOT THE MORE CREDIBLE EXPLANATION.

But as you say totally possible.

So donīt claim that we are not accepting or looking at other explanations than the sinister ones - we always do, but they are not always good explanations. And sometimes they are out and out silly.

Take Mizen, for example. You say that he could be lying, that he could be confused, that he could be incompetent.

Lechmere says that he and Paul spoke to Mizen. If he was the killer, he needed to take focus away from his having fed Mizen his lies with Paul out of earshot. He stood to gain from giving the inquest the picture of both him and Paul speaking to Mizen.

Mizen says that one man spoke to him. The coroner has to ask him if there was not another man around too before he remembers to mention Paul. One man spoke to Mizen, thatīs what he himself says.

Now if Mizen has to be reminded that there was even another man there, what does that say about his recall?

One of these men is not telling it as it was. Who would that man be? Who had a reason to lie?

Answer me this:

Would Mizen lie about it, and if so: why?

Would he forget how many men it was that spoke to him? Is that credible?

Since he forgot that Paul was even there, yep.

As for his incompetence, he was given a very good grade after his service, the next best grade possible. He was a very competent policeman, Gut; it is on record.

But of course, you may say that he may have had a bad evening. Yes, he may - but it is never and can never be the best bid. It is an outside possibility, a freak shot. Again.

He lived a quiet life,

So did Cross.

Mizen, in a religious community. He was a church choir singer, and when he retired he went back home to care for his fathers farm. He did this admirably, and he became some sort of church warden in the village.
For all we know, he was an efficient, good, hard-working man who was given a very good service record as a copper when he took his leave.

Is that a man who would get all confused and get it all wrong? It could be, but is that the better guess? No, it is - once again - the outside, freak possibility that will always be there. He could have been drunk on the night in question, he could have suffered from migraine etcetera, etcetera. Outside possibilities, freak chances.

Again if he can't even remember that Paul was there until he is reminded it certainly seems that he may have been capable of being confused.

He only spoke very shortly to the carman. He is very clear about what was said. He does not waver, he does not say "I could not make out what he said".

The carman said that he was needed in Bucks Row, where another PC awaited him, and that a woman was lying in the street there.

If the carman had said "Hey, officer, me and my pal found this woman lying in the street down in Buckīs Row, and I think she may be dead or dying", then would Mizen let the men go without even asking for their names?

Who knows, but I would expect he would make haste for Bucks Row.

No, he would not. It was the lie about the other PC that took Lechmere past Mizen, otherwise he would not have been allowed to pass. And Mizens failure to come forward and correct Neil afterwards bears witness to this - it all fitted, but it only fitted if he had been lied to!

I don't understand how his failure to correct Neil proves a thing, but maybe I've missed something.

Once again, there ARE other possibilities, but none of them are even remotely as likely to be true as is the Mizen scam. If Mizen was not lied to, then he reacted very oddly, not hurrying to Bucks Row and not telling his superiors that Neil had it wrong.

If he's lied to or not why didn't he hot foot it to Bucks Row.

If he WAS lied to, then he acted very logically, taking it easy down to Buckīs Row, knowing that a colleague had the situation in hand, and not complaining about Neil telling it as Mizen thought it was.

I've never heard of a policeman in my life who is told he's wanted at X by a fellow officer because there's been a body found who doesn't go at all haste.

The game is up. It really is. We canīt prove it beyond doubt

,

Well I am glad to hear you admit that.

but we CAN prove that it is the best guess by far.

Well so some think

The best,
Fisherman

Same to you my friend.

[Varqm]

What would be a good soundtrack for the battle between Lechmere and Hutchinson?

[GUT]

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.

[GUT]

What would be a good soundtrack for the battle between Lechmere and Hutchinson?

G'day Varqm


How about the Keystone Cops tune, because the only way I can make sense of either of them is if I accept that the Keystone Cops investigated.

[MrBarnett]

Morning, Fish .

This revelation about the carrying of meat is very interesting. I have sent for a copy of The Story of Pickfords to check it out. Do you know, did he take meat from the slaughterhouses to butchers and meat markets?

One point I have to make, though, is that as a mere carrier of the meat, there would be no reason for Lech to be cutting it and so no need for a butcher's knife.

And the nature of any blood staining would be very different from that incurred by a slaughterman (or a serial killer).

MrB

[Fisherman]

GUT:

Why isn't it the better guess, it is totally logical.

It is not the better guess because we have not one single case of evidence to him having used the name Cross at any occasion other than in relation to the murder investigation. But we DO have more than a hundred signatures saying Lechmere. Plus these signatures were made in combination with authority contacts, and the police is just such an authority contact.

It is all very easy - we know that he called himself Lechmere, we donīt know that he called himself Cross with the one exception.

But as you say totally possible.

Yes, it is possible. It will always be. But much weight needs to attach to which is the better choice.
There will always be other explanations as long as no proof can be found. Even nif you hold a smoking gun in yoour han and the man in fron of you falls to the gound with a hole in his chest, it COULD BE that you missed and anoyther bullet was fired from behind you. We can ALWAYS find alternative solutions when no absolute proof is at hand.

But what should we go with in such cases?

Now if Mizen has to be reminded that there was even another man there, what does that say about his recall?

Nothing at all. He had no problems remembering Paul. He was sure that he was there, and he was sure that he looked like a carman too. He just didnīt mention him when he described what had happened since he played no role at all in the conversation.
And that is what we shouldfocus on -Paul never participated.
So Lechmere lies through his teeth when he says he did.

Since he forgot that Paul was even there, yep.

But he didnīt forget it, did he? He didnīt speak about Paul until asked, but that is not the same as not remembering him If he had not remebered him, he would have said "No" when the coroner said "there was another man in company with Lechmere, wasnīt there?"

Plus, Gut, and now you need to think - how did the coroner know that there was another man present? Who had told him about that?

I would strongly suggest that there can only have been one source: Mizen. So he had told the police about Paul ne had said what role he played, and then he just spoke of Lechmere at the inquest, knowing quite well that Paul was of no significance to what perspired.

We really, really need to get a grip on all of this. I think you may be dribbling yourself out of the game if you donīt take into account all the variables we can tell must have been there. Mizen did not forget about Paul at all, right?

So did Cross.

Come on. So did Peter Kürten.
Are you suggesting that Mizen could have been a serial killer? We have him on record, he stayed lived on the grounds of the St Anderws congregation where he helped out with the church work, he was a former gardener when he joined the police, he returned to his fathers farm and tended to it with great success, he went on to become a church warden, he sang in the church choir. Sure, it could point the wrong way, but then thereīs that thing with outside, freak possibilities again ...!

About Lechmere, there are strong pointers to him being Jack the Ripper. Thatīs not a quiet life.

Again if he can't even remember that Paul was there until he is reminded it certainly seems that he may have been capable of being confused.

Again, he DID remember it. And his servíce record tells us that he was not easily confused. But please, Gut - letīs not try and perpetuate more myths here. Letīs not try and create a story where Mizen had forgotten about Paul, He very obviously and clearly had not.

Who knows, but I would expect he would make haste for Bucks Row.

And he didnīt! Guess why!

As for whether he would let the carmen go, there are good answers and freak, outside possibilitites too. As longs as we realize that, we will be fine.

I don't understand how his failure to correct Neil proves a thing, but maybe I've missed something.

If Mizen knew that the carmen - and NOT Neil - were the ones that found the body, then why would he not inform his superiors about it as soon as Neil witnessed on inquest day one and did not mention the carmen at all?

Make the assumption that Lechmere never said anything at all about another PC in Buckīs Row. That was Lechmereīs own version of the truth. He said that he only told Mizen that there was a woman in Buckīs Row who was probably dead or perhaps drunk, right?

Then Mizen reads the article from the inquest īs first day. And there, Neil says that he came into Buckīs Row and found a woman lying there. He describes it all as if HE was the one who found Nichols.

Then Mizen should go "Hello! Neil was not the man who found Nichols, the carmen I spoke to found her first!"

Then what should he do, having this knowledge about a top priority murder case?
Keep quiet about it, or tell his superiors?

Then Neil goes on to say, in an interview that the papers all have on the 3:rd, that the talk of two men showing him to the body is wrong - he found the body by himself!
Shouldnīt that ring warning bells with Mizen? Shouldnīt he realize that the men spoken of were the carmen? Should he not go straight to his superiors and put the cards on the table (if he had not already done it two days earlier)?

He knew that Neil was wrong. He knew that the carmen had found the body. IF, that is, he had not been lied to.

Take it one step further. If Lechmere had not spoken of any PC in Buckīs Row, what would be Mizenīs reaction when he ran into Neil up at Brownīs stable yard? I would think that he would be surprised to see a colleague of his in place already, and that he would say "Oh, youīve found the woman too; I was told by two guys about her."

At wich remove in time Neil would say: "WHAT??!!! And you LET THEM GO???"

The only credible scenario in which Mizen would not be baffled by Neilīs presence outside Browns Stable Yard, and in which he would not inform his superiors about Neil being wrong, is one where he was told by Lechmere that there was another PC in Buckīs Row.
If he was fed that information, he would NOT be baffled by Neilīs presence at the murder spot, and he would NOT think that Neil had it wrong at the inquest, and he would NOT protest about the paper interview since he know that Neil was correct - he had not been directed to the body by two men.

It is a shrewd, clever, devious lie, but we can easily untangle it by looking at what Mizen did. His reactions tell the story.

Are you with me now? Can you see the scam?

If he's lied to or not why didn't he hot foot it to Bucks Row.

Because a colleague of his already had the situation in hand, and the errand was not serious. In all probability, she was just a drunkenbolt, who needed an escort to the police station to sober up.
That was the picture Lechmere fed Mizen.

I've never heard of a policeman in my life who is told he's wanted at X by a fellow officer because there's been a body found who doesn't go at all haste.

That would depend on the nature of the errand. Note that Mizen never asked Lechmere "Is it serious?" or anything like that. He apparently was told the news in a tone and manner that informed him that it was routine and not serious. At the inquest, he said that the carman never said anything about any murder or suicide.

There was never any seriousness in the message, no "Quickly, officer, you must run to Buckīs Row!"
There was a toned down message about a routine errand, in all probability speaking of a drunkard.

Well I am glad to hear you admit that.

Admit? What do you mean admit? When you admit, you have first denied, and I have never denied it. I have never said I can prove my case. I am saying that it is a very strong and very good case, and the probable solution to the Ripper case. I stand by that.

Well so some think.

No, itīs not a question of some thinking it. The much more probable thing is that Lechmere lied to Mizen. The much more credible thing is that was because he was the killer. Thatīs beyond questioning in both cases.
Alternative suggestions MAY apply, but they have much less going for them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Morning, Fish .

This revelation about the carrying of meat is very interesting. I have sent for a copy of The Story of Pickfords to check it out. Do you know, did he take meat from the slaughterhouses to butchers and meat markets?

One point I have to make, though, is that as a mere carrier of the meat, there would be no reason for Lech to be cutting it and so no need for a butcher's knife.

And the nature of any blood staining would be very different from that incurred by a slaughterman (or a serial killer).

MrB

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

Of course, a lot of ifīs and butīs 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. You can find information on the net about how the railway revolutionized the meat transporting options (in 1849, a million cattle were transported on train in to London, whereas they were driven on hoof a few decades before), and you can see that there were three contractors managing the meat transports inside London. Pickfords was one of them.

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

It should be enough.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

What would be a good soundtrack for the battle between Lechmere and Hutchinson?

Nothin compares to U

Fisherman