Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[GUT]

G'day Abby

However, I suspect he innocently used the name cross in this instance because he was known as cross at Pickfords, since he started work there some 20 years earlier while still under the auspices of his stepfather Cross and was probably commonly using that name at that time he started there.
And of course it would help keep his family protected from undue attention.
And of course, since his stepdad Cross was cop, im sure he thought it would go over well while dealing with the police.

All clear and logical reasons to use Cross that are totally consistent with innocence.

[GUT]

And, equally ideally, he would want to tell the inquest that he was "Rowan Pumpernickel, 16 Bath Street, working at Billingsgate market". That way, he could be sure that family and friends would not recognize him.

There was a slight problem, though - he could not get away with lying openly about it all. So he would have planned what to say in the respective arenas, cop shop and inquest room, to make it pan out.

If the police were to stupid to even visit Pickfords and make the most basic of inquiries why not use Rowan Pumpernickel?

[Chris]

if guilty: it might help keep his more commonly used name out of the papers and hidden from people putting it together-whether family members or pressmen, etc. Since technically it is his name(one of them), if found out by the police its not as damming as giving a totally false address.He could come up with some excuse for giving it without actually lying, whereas there could be no unsuspicious reason for giving a false address.

Yes, that's more or less what Fisherman was suggesting in what I quoted above, but it would only work if his address could be kept out of the papers too. So the suggestion was that he had refused to give his address in court.

That's what I'm asking about. Is there any evidence to support the extraordinary claim that he could have refused to give his address in court?

[Abby Normal]

What I'm asking for is evidence for the extraordinary claim that Lechmere/Cross could have refused to give his address at the inquest.

Because the explanation suggested by Fisherman above relies on the idea that he could have done that. Otherwise, what would have been the point of giving a false surname, but the correct address?

Hi Chris
if guilty: it might help keep his more commonly used name out of the papers and hidden from people putting it together-whether family members or pressmen, etc. Since technically it is his name(one of them), if found out by the police its not as damming as giving a totally false address.He could come up with some excuse for giving it without actually lying, whereas there could be no unsuspicious reason for giving a false address.

However, I suspect he innocently used the name cross in this instance because he was known as cross at Pickfords, since he started work there some 20 years earlier while still under the auspices of his stepfather Cross and was probably commonly using that name at that time he started there.
And of course it would help keep his family protected from undue attention.
And of course, since his stepdad Cross was cop, im sure he thought it would go over well while dealing with the police.

[Chris]

A name he had when he was a child (his stepfathers surname), in all the 120 official documents charting his life one names him as 'cross'. Certainly strange to use a name from your childhood? And to lie about an officer already at the scene to another??

What I'm asking for is evidence for the extraordinary claim that Lechmere/Cross could have refused to give his address at the inquest.

Because the explanation suggested by Fisherman above relies on the idea that he could have done that. Otherwise, what would have been the point of giving a false surname, but the correct address?

[Kaz]

I must admit I've never understood what the suggested explanation was for Lechmere/Cross giving a supposedly false surname to the police, while giving his correct address.

A name he had when he was a child (his stepfathers surname), in all the 120 official documents charting his life one names him as 'cross'. Certainly strange to use a name from your childhood? And to lie about an officer already at the scene to another??

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry!

There are a number of unsolved murders where Lechmere can be logically placed near the spots.
I will not give these murders away, since there is work proceeding on a book about Lechmere as the killer.

I have told you a zillion times that I donīt think he stopped killing in 1888. That stands, but I will not provide the examples; they are not my research. But they are there.

Otherwise, generally speaking, I know quite well that serialists very often keep on killing until they are halted for some reason. I do not think it is something that will hold true in all cases, though - a close shave could well have ended the carreers of some of these guys, as could changed circumstances in some form.

Thatīs not to say that you are wrong - you are not. The statistics are on your side - if the Ripper was not killed, taken ill, incarcerated or fled the country, he would arguably go on killing in the area. And - just like I say - I think that Lechmere DID go on killing.

You seem to think that if he went on killing, he must have done so employing the exact same MO as in the Ripper series. I disagree with that - I think he could well have been done with the ripping, perhaps throwing in a less than enthusiastic effort on MacKenzie and then abandoning something that did not give him what he was looking for anymore. Thatīs just a guess, but a guess that works for me.

The best,
Fisherman

Do you really and honestly believe that all the six murders you higlight in the program were the work of the same killer ?

[Chris]

Once again, what is your problem with the interpretation that he wanted the police not to be able to suspect him, but his wife and aquaintances not to be able to make him out?

There were three elements involved:
1. His name
2. His address
3. His working place

Make the assumption that he wanted to stay unsuspected by the police and undetected by those close to him. He would have no reason at all to lie about any of the parameters when speaking to the police. In fact, he would want to come as close as possible to being very clear about all three points.

However, the exact opposite applies when it comes to having it revealed in the papers - he would want to obscure as much as possible in that department.

So, ideally, he would use the information "Charles Allen Lechmere, 22 Doveton Street, working at Pickfords", when speaking to the police. That way, he could be sure that they would not suspect him on grounds of having misinformed them.

And, equally ideally, he would want to tell the inquest that he was "Rowan Pumpernickel, 16 Bath Street, working at Billingsgate market". That way, he could be sure that family and friends would not recognize him.

There was a slight problem, though - he could not get away with lying openly about it all. So he would have planned what to say in the respective arenas, cop shop and inquest room, to make it pan out.

That would have meant that heneeded to keep his real name out of the story he told the police, since he would have to repeat it at the inquest. But he also needed not to have the police suspect him. Therefore he needed a name that his family and aquiantances would not recognize him by, but that would not be an inexplicable lie. So he opten for the explicable lie "Cross".

The address he skipped over, since it would also make him recognizable.

I must admit I've never understood what the suggested explanation was for Lechmere/Cross giving a supposedly false surname to the police, while giving his correct address.

I've just found Fisherman's scenario, quoted above. But it appears to rely on the idea that he could have refused to give an address when he gave evidence at the inquest. That seems an astonishing suggestion. Has any evidence ever been produced to support this idea?

[Sally]

What I think we need is a documentary on Hutchinson.

[Elias]

Well, the programme put forward a very strong case (unless it was all lies). Look forward to the book.

Agreed, it was quite a compelling argument that was put forward - I remember being struck early on when first reading some of the Ripper literature how it just seemed to be accepted that Cross' version of events was gospel, even though he's the only individual we can definitely say was found alone with one of the victims close to the time of death. If I remember right, even Sugden's brilliant book uses Cross' story to begin the chapter on this murder seemingly without doubting it for a moment.

There are still though questions to be answered, most obviously why did he stop at MJK? The end of the documentary seemed to hint that they don't believe he did.

I'm also always a bit suspicious of the geo-profiling that's used on suspects. I know it's a widely used modern method but surely, given the crowded, tight-knit community Whitechapel was, you could single out just about anyone who lived in the area at the time and find links to the scenes through family, work etc?

[Kaz]

Hi Kaz

I think he's certainly a legitimate person of interest, but that's about it...

All the best

Dave

Well, the programme put forward a very strong case (unless it was all lies). Look forward to the book.

[Harry D]

Just watched the channel 5 documentary on lechmere, looks like a good candidate for JTR to me.

http://youtu.be/_JUCfX1P1ik

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Kaz

I think he's certainly a legitimate person of interest, but that's about it...

All the best

Dave

[Kaz]

Just watched the channel 5 documentary on lechmere, looks like a good candidate for JTR to me.

[GUT]

One thing you can't fault Fish for is hs willingness to discuss his suspect.


I just wish he had some DNA and bits of cloth.