Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[RockySullivan]

Wasn't the Torso killer also dumping bodies in the river? I don't have a problem with MO differences as these could be explained by inconsistent access to a secure private location, but I do have a problem with the signature. If the Torso killer was Jack, I'd expect his body dumps to be such as to maximize shock value.

The torso killer dumped a torso in new Scotland Yard. That surely shocked the hell out of the police atleast don't you think?

[Fisherman]

Harry D:
Fair enough. Then, for now, you will have to concede that you cannot show me any evidence that Crossmere continued killing after the Whitechapel murders.

No, Harry: I can but will not do so, thatīs the rub. What I very cleary said in my former post is that Lechmere can be placed close to a number of post 1888 murder scenes. How he can be placed there, I wonīt disclose, since - as I told you - there is a book being written in which a number of points can be made about these matters. The underlying research is not mine, however, and I have no business giving away something that the book may use.

That's your prerogative, Fisherman. Need I remind you that you're the one here stating with some confidence that Crossmere was the Ripper. At the very least you should be prepared for someone to ask you if or why Crossmere stopped killing.

Prepared? Iīm prepared for people asking about his shoe size and preferrred pastimes, but that does not mean that I should be held accountable for not being able to answer it. I have given the grounds for why I suspect him - which is not the same as being certain that he WAS the killer - and I willingly answer questions about him, as far as I can. That is all you can ask, I should think.

Generally speaking, I don't disagree with that. On the other hand, Jack wasn't your average serial killer. He wasn't just going around killing women, he was mutilating them and taking out their organs, be it in public streets, someone's backyard or in the victim's bedroom. On at least one of those occasions he was seconds away from being caught. This depicts a disorganised risk-taker with a violent fetish and a lucky streak. I doubt that the same man who spent the night dissecting MJK beyond all recognition was the type to decide his work was done and call it quits. That wasn't a rational mind at work.

Not rational translates into being unpredictable, Harry. Rational translates into being predictable.
What you are saying is that an unpredictable man should be predicted to act predictably. It pans out poorly, as you may realize.

As such, and as I have said, I myself would have expected the killer to proceed killing. Like I said, I also think he did just that, although in a less flamboyant manner.
I donīt think he was disorganized at all, and I donīt think that everything was down to luck when it comes to his escaping the law. Disorganized killers are sometimes eviscerators, yes. And killing out in the open streets may look disorganized. But it does not have to be!
Take David Carpenter, who killed in national parks, in the close proximity of people who could have seen him - was he disorganized? No. He was totally organized, and took great care not to leave any trail behind him.
Killing out in the open may be disorganized, but it may also be a choice, led on by either a wish to haighten the thrill or by sheer necessity - it could have been the only possibility that was left to the killer.
And eviscerating? Yes, it can be disorganized - but it need not be. Take Arthur Shawcross, who enjoyed eviscerating. Was HE disorganised? No, he was not. He was very organised, and he too took care not to leave any trail behind him.

Now we have looked at three parameters: evisceration, killing in the open streets and leaving trails. Out of these three parameters, I would say that it is only the latter that can point decisevely in one direction - that of an organised killer.
And how much of a trail did the Ripper leave? Nothing at all. No murder weapons left behind, no blood trails, no footprints, no nothing.

I sometimes speak of the back door of 29 Hanbury Street as a good example of why we should look for an organised killer. It was a door that was hinged in a manner that made it close itself. Once youīd pushed it open and passed through it, it would swing back and close again.

Where is the information about bloodied palm- or fingerprints on that door? Answer: It is not there. So we may conclude that the door was free from blood (the police sought for any blood in the yard with great zeal).

How could that be? Well, it could owe to a number of things:

The killer may have avoided getting blood on his hands or he may have wiped his hands before grabbing the door - organised.

The killer may have opened the door with his foot when leaving - organised.

The killer may have jammed the door open when entering the yard, only to kick the jamming feature away as he left - improbable but neverhteless very organised.

The point is that a disorganised killer would arguably have dived, dolphinstyle, into Chapman and he would have gotten blood all over his hands. Then, when he left, he would not have pondered staying away from leaving palm- or fingerprints on the door, since that would have made him an organised killer. He would have grabbed the door and set off blood on it, and the police would have found it and reported it.

Thereīs more to say on the organised/disorganised bit, but I think this should be an eye-opener.

Well, I genuinely look forward to seeing what evidence you have of that.

I have no proof at all - but as I said, Lechmere can be placed close to a number of post 1888 murder sites.

I don't think it's a fact that the Ripper must have gone on killing with the same MO. While there are known cases of serial killers changing their techniques, we humans as a species are creatures of habit and a level of consistency can still be identified, especially if one has such a distinct signature like the Ripper did.

And one last thought, to apply your own reasoning: How do we know that Crossmere wasn't investigated by the police? We don't know every suspect that was on the police files. Don't you think the police would've had the common sense to check out the man found with the first victim, who provided them with a false surname?

Then why didnīt they get his TRUE surname, and use it in the files, Harry? That question MUST be answered before it could be accepted that he was thoroughly investigated.
Of course they asked him a lot of questions as he arrived, I think we must accept that - but to me, the salient point is that we can combine the lack of the name Lechmere in the police files with our knowledge that he had come forward out of his own free will, not once but TWICE to speak to the police. They would have been much impressed and very thankful, they would have noted how he differed from Paul, and they would have seen a grey, inconspicious-looking brit, a confessed family father and a man who had held down a steady job for more that twenty years. He would have been everything they were NOT looking for.

But even if he had been a foreigner with a malicious-looking face and a weasing voice, I still think that his having come forward twice of his own free will, seemingly to help out, the police would be very inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt.
To them, he had three things going for him:

1. He saw the need to take a look at Nichols, arguably with the intent to help - good citizen.

2. He contacted and spoke to Mizen, informing him about the deed - good citizen. Killers do not inform the police about where to find their victims, they flee and they hide.

3. He even came forward once more, when it was called for, to help out with whatever questions the inquest had to ask - good citizen. A killer would not do that.

He made it all work for him if he was the killer. And thatīs a very clever thing to do. If he had not walked away with Paul, contactin Mizen, and if he had not come to the inquest, then how would the police have looked at him if they bought Pauls story in the papers (ironaically, they didnīt, but Lechmere couldnīt bank on that)? Very differently, I would suggest!

They would not know who he was, so he would not have the family father/loyal worker going for him.

The would not know how long he had been standing by the body - it was only he himself that provided that 40 yard distance to Paul, thus laying down a very short interval.

They would not have a man that had proven himself a good citizen, by helping the police, but instead a man from the murder spot - who vanished into thin air.

They would be left with a shady figure that had been found standing by the victims side, and who seemingly fled afterwards. They would be left with a man they reasonably would argue was the probable killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

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.

Fair enough. Then, for now, you will have to concede that you cannot show me any evidence that Crossmere continued killing after the Whitechapel murders.

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.

That's your prerogative, Fisherman. Need I remind you that you're the one here stating with some confidence that Crossmere was the Ripper. At the very least you should be prepared for someone to ask you if or why Crossmere stopped killing.

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.

Generally speaking, I don't disagree with that. On the other hand, Jack wasn't your average serial killer. He wasn't just going around killing women, he was mutilating them and taking out their organs, be it in public streets, someone's backyard or in the victim's bedroom. On at least one of those occasions he was seconds away from being caught. This depicts a disorganised risk-taker with a violent fetish and a lucky streak. I doubt that the same man who spent the night dissecting MJK beyond all recognition was the type to decide his work was done and call it quits. That wasn't a rational mind at work.

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.

Well, I genuinely look forward to seeing what evidence you have of that.

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.

I don't think it's a fact that the Ripper must have gone on killing with the same MO. While there are known cases of serial killers changing their techniques, we humans as a species are creatures of habit and a level of consistency can still be identified, especially if one has such a distinct signature like the Ripper did.

And one last thought, to apply your own reasoning: How do we know that Crossmere wasn't investigated by the police? We don't know every suspect that was on the police files. Don't you think the police would've had the common sense to check out the man found with the first victim, who provided them with a false surname?

[Fisherman]

Fish, if you were truly as objective as you claim to be and simply on a hunt for the 'truth' you would readily accept that Crossmere's apparent cessation from murdering, or the lack of any subsequent murders being tied to him, is a legitimate criticism of him as a suspect. But because you are so entrenched in your belief that he WAS the Ripper, you are trying to explain around it and proposing arguments from ignorance.

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

[Harry D]

Fish, if you were truly as objective as you claim to be and simply on a hunt for the 'truth' you would readily accept that Crossmere's apparent cessation from murdering, or the lack of any subsequent murders being tied to him, is a legitimate criticism of him as a suspect. But because you are so entrenched in your belief that he WAS the Ripper, you are trying to explain around it and proposing arguments from ignorance.

[Fisherman]

(Listen to me, one old book and I'm an expert;-)

It takes a lot less for some, so you should be proud of yourself...
And yes, I realize that these were times when the frozen meat trade was growing very fast - itīs clearly shown by the figures you provided.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And you are presuming that Rader and Jack were both sexual killers.

And Rader stopped between the ages of 32 and 40, the perhaps at the height of his sexual drive [after 25].

These are the dates of Raders kills (or attacks with an intent to kill):

15 januari 1974
4 april 1974
4 april 1974
17 mars 1977
8 december 1977
27 april 1985
16 september 1986
19 januari 1991

Five attacks in the first four years. An eight year hiatus. Two attacks in two years. A five year hiatus. One single attack. A fourteen year period with no kills, and then the police nails him.

Can you see the drop? I can.

As for the sexual element, Rader masturbated over his victims, and he said that he enjoyed sexual fantasies while planning the deeds.

Hereīs a quotation from his own lips: "I'm sorry this happen to society. They are the ones who suffer the most. It hard to control myself. You probably call me 'psychotic with sexual perversion hang-up."

Here is another one, concerning Marine Hedge, one of his victims: "After that, since I was still in the sexual fantasy, I went ahead and stripped her."

Rader was considered sexually immature by psychiatrists, and they believed that was why he did not rape his victims, instead fantazising about them and masturbating on them.

Whether the Ripper killed for sex or not we cannot tell. But we do know that he attacked the genitals and the reproductive organs, and we know that taking trophies in the shape of inner organs is normally related to sex.

The best,
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

Hi Fish
I agree, I don't find an apparent different MO a big problem in general to serial killers, they change their MO for many reasons. Nor specifically between the torso man and the ripper either.

I struggle comprehending how two such monsters could be operating at the same time/place at such an early time in the history of serial killers.

I also see a connection between the different torsos with each other and to some extant with the ripper, as all had abdominal mutilations.

I have said it before and I will say it again: If the torso and ripper murders were by the same man perhaps the ripper murders were done when the killer could not bring the victims to his private locations, and had to kill them on the streets. And the torso murders were when he could bring them somewhere private, be it his home, or place of work and then the dismemberment was done for ease of removal of bodies.

I also see a lack of need to hide the victims-on the contrary it seems both series the killer may want to have the bodies/parts found-and to be shocking. and of course their is the victimology.

as a carman, lech has access to a cart, would be familiar with a wider swath of London that the torsos/parts were found, fits the age and his particular work and home situation might offer the explanation that I mentioned above re aparrent different MO.

Wasn't the Torso killer also dumping bodies in the river? I don't have a problem with MO differences as these could be explained by inconsistent access to a secure private location, but I do have a problem with the signature. If the Torso killer was Jack, I'd expect his body dumps to be such as to maximize shock value.

[drstrange169]

" ... found this link on NZ exports to GB"

Hello Caligo, this is what I love about this hobby, who else would avidly read a 1912 book called, "The History Of Frozen Meat"? ;-)

" ... we find that between 1888 and 1893, the ratio was doubled, roughly speaking ..."

Hello Fish,

That rise was directly due to the viability of frozen meat shipping. After a few false starts it started really kicking in 1889.
(Listen to me, one old book and I'm an expert;-)

[GUT]

And Rader stopped between the ages of 32 and 40, the perhaps at the height of his sexual drive [after 25].

[GUT]

Gee Fisherman pity you didn't read what I said compare what I said

In fact given the gaps of 8 and 5 years I think the odds are pretty good he would have killed again if he wasn't apprehended.

With your take on it

And he would have killed again, for sure, if it had not been for the ruddy policemen who hauled him in?

Worlds apart aren't they?

And you are presuming that Rader and Jack were both sexual killers.

[Fisherman]

Hate to upset anyone but BTK [Dennis Rader] actually had an 8 year hiatus between Shirley Vian March 77 and Marine Hedge April 85 and the again between his last two victims 5 years.

And remember he said he was bored because his children were off his hands and that was why he resurfaced. IE he couldn't help himself. Whereas as far as anyone can tell Cross went on to live a perfectly insignificant life, if Rader had been able to do the same he would never have been caught so Rader a proof Cross could have gone on to live a normal life is useless, simply Rader didn't live a "normal" life but could not restrain himself which lead to his capture.

In fact given the gaps of 8 and 5 years I think the odds are pretty good he would have killed again if he wasn't apprehended.

Aha. So he did NOT stop killing? He was just on a fourteen-year long hiatus? And he would have killed again, for sure, if it had not been for the ruddy policemen who hauled him in?

Letīs see here, the logic goes "If you murder on one occasion (A), and then on another, later occasion (B), you WILL inevitably kill at a third occasion (C) too. That is proven by the sequence provided by (A) and (B).

Consequentially, since Rader had proven himself able to make long pauses inbetween his killings, that only proved that there was no time span long enough to be anything but the space inbetween his last kill and his upcoming one? If he had stayed inactive for, say fortynine years, it would just be a hiatus running towards itīs inevitable end?

Gee, the things I am learning today!

Iīll try and be as generous myself, and I will make a modest try to teach you something, if I may!

Many serial killings are about sex. You will know that; the perpetrator craves for some sort of satisfaction coupled to extreme violence, and people die as a consequence. And the killer just goes on and on and canīt stop himself.

Lord Byron once said that he would rather smother a child in itīs cradle than look away from his own lusts. Or something such. He knew that the sexual drive is a prolific one.

But what happens to the sexual drive over time? Exactly, it looses power.

Try and combine these insights with our picture of a serial killer. What will happen if he is not caught, and if he looses the sexual urge and drive that made him kill in the first place?

Will he go on killing until he is caught, just because people sometimes think that this is a universal truth?

Or will he stop killing when the drive is not there?

Dennis Rader was born in 1945.

He first killed in 1974, at the age of 29.

His last murder was perpetrated in 1991, when he was 46.

He was apprehended by the police in 2004, approaching 60.

If I suggest that he killed during years when he was sexually very active, and gained sexual satisfaction from his deeds, does that sound plausible to you?

If I furthermore suggest that he may well have stopped killing in 1991, since his sexual drive was diminished after that, does it make any sort of sense?

Because that is what I am seeing in Raders case. Furthermore, I think that is something that has happened to other serialists too. They are not all put away or dead on disenabled to kill. In many cases, the drive has gone away, and they walk amongst us as free men.

Nota bene that I am not suggesting this scenario for Lechmere in 1888. I think he went on killing for some time, but I donīt think he did when he lost his drive.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

Hate to upset anyone but BTK [Dennis Rader] actually had an 8 year hiatus between Shirley Vian March 77 and Marine Hedge April 85 and the again between his last two victims 5 years.

And remember he said he was bored because his children were off his hands and that was why he resurfaced. IE he couldn't help himself. Whereas as far as anyone can tell Cross went on to live a perfectly insignificant life, if Rader had been able to do the same he would never have been caught so Rader a proof Cross could have gone on to live a normal life is useless, simply Rader didn't live a "normal" life but could not restrain himself which lead to his capture.

In fact given the gaps of 8 and 5 years I think the odds are pretty good he would have killed again if he wasn't apprehended.

Thanks, Gut. Saves me explaining this to my little Fishy on a dishy.

[GUT]

Hate to upset anyone but BTK [Dennis Rader] actually had an 8 year hiatus between Shirley Vian March 77 and Marine Hedge April 85 and the again between his last two victims 5 years.

And remember he said he was bored because his children were off his hands and that was why he resurfaced. IE he couldn't help himself. Whereas as far as anyone can tell Cross went on to live a perfectly insignificant life, if Rader had been able to do the same he would never have been caught so Rader a proof Cross could have gone on to live a normal life is useless, simply Rader didn't live a "normal" life but could not restrain himself which lead to his capture.

In fact given the gaps of 8 and 5 years I think the odds are pretty good he would have killed again if he wasn't apprehended.

[Fisherman]

Harry D:

My bad, Fish, I was under the impression that there was an eight year hiatus in Rader's killing spree from 1977 - 1985? Am I mistaken in this belief?

Nope. But it is not the interesting thing in the context we are speaking about. Rader killed in 1991, and then he stopped. The police nicked him in 2005. After fourteen years of murderous inactivity, no less.
THAT is what we are speaking about. Otherwise there would be no cause to say that he stopped, would there? Think about it!

There are always exceptions to the rule, but if you think that the one of the most gruesome serial killers in history, the same man who butchered MJK beyond recognition, threw up his apron afterwards and called it a day, you've got some 'splainin to do.
And again, it's ironic, because when it came to Levy as a suspect you couldn't help citing the precedent for the lack of 'insane' serial killers, but when it comes to Crossmere's murder history, you're willing to buck the odds?

No, I donīt think he necessarily called it quits after Kelly - as I have told you over and over and over and over and over and over again. Not that youīve listened, but still! I think he may well have gone on killing, but not as flamboyantly, if you will, as in the Ripper cases.

Ah, the old 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' argument? Nice try but the burden of proof isn't on me to show that Crossmere DIDN'T kill after the C5. I don't believe Crossmere was an evil cyborg sent back from the future to kill the mother of John Connor, either. Do I need to show evidence for that?

I donīt have to prove anything at all, Harry. None of the Ripper cases have a proven killer to begin with, so you are raising unsatisfiable demands here, Iīm afraid.
However, it is you that claim that serial killers cannot possibly stop, so that should be "evidence" enough for you - Lechmere could not have stopped, according to you. Embrace it.

Not when it's a pretty big piece missing from your jigsaw.

Have you seen any Ripper jigsaw with all the pices in place? Nope. You have only seen one with MANY pieces in place.

Fish, it's not my belief that you're trying to fit Crossmere up for the crimes. There's an untold number of posts on this very forum which can attest to that fact. He's a complete non-starter as a suspect, whose only crime was finding the first victim. All you've done afterwards is interpret his subsequent behaviour in a suspicious light and tried to make all kinds of tenuous links to fit him up as the Ripper, to the point that you claim he would "probably have been charged" if the police had investigated him, despite the sheer lack of evidence to support this bold claim.

You have had the evidence. You just donīt like it, and you are unable to weigh it correctly. Plus, of course, you are completely blinded by your burning desire to try and diss Lechmere. It all probably owes to my pointing out of a number of obvious and slightly embarassing mistakes on your behalf.

I think you need to wait and see, Harry. Time will tell whether I am correct about Lechmereīs viability as a man chargeable with murder.

And thatīs all I have to say to you for now.

The best,
Fisherman