Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Bridewell]

G'day Bridewell



Or even a committal, in my opinion.

The only thing I could see a charge securing would be a reprimand for whoever filed the charges. IF I was briefed to prosecute, on the "evidence" we have I would contact the head of prosecutions and have a word about certain Solicitors wasting taxpayers money on cases bound to fail.

Does this mean that Cross wasn't the man, no simply that there is just not enough evidence. But that applies to a whole slew of suspects.

Absolutely. It can't be said that Fisherman doesn't have valid reason for considering Lechmere to be a person of interest. What can be said is that he constantly overstates the strength of his argument.

[GUT]

What can be said is that he constantly overstates the strength of his argument.

And again that applies to a whole slew of Ripperologists. They have someone worth following up on but want to elevate them to prime suspect far too early.

Bus if you were a custody Sgt [isn't that what I read somewhere] you are probably well aware of the number of prosecutions that go South because charges were filed too early.

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman



But what about Paul's belief that she was still alive when Cross took him to her? If Paul was right then that all fits, she was left for dead, but took a short while to expire.

You cannot be alive with the kind of damage that Nichols had, Gut. There may be air escaping the lungs or perhaps the odd nerve-twitch - but you are effectively dead.
However, air leaving the lungs and nerve-twitches are not something that will happen many minutes after death. So yes, it fits - but it fits absolutely best with Lechmere as the killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

But what about Paul's belief that she was still alive when Cross took him to her? If Paul was right then that all fits, she was left for dead, but took a short while to expire.

Maybe, as Mr Lucky`s theory suggests, Nichols was merely unconscious when Cross took Paul over to her.

It may explain how on earth neither Cross or Paul stepped in the pool of blood by her neck, or got any on their hands when they attended to her.

[GUT]

Maybe, as Mr Lucky`s theory suggests, Nichols was merely unconscious when Cross took Paul over to her.

It may explain how on earth neither Cross or Paul stepped in the pool of blood by her neck, or got any on their hands when they attended to her.

I wonder if there is any chance that she was unconscious when Cross and Paul left here and Jack was hiding only to finish the job when they left?

[Jon Guy]

I wonder if there is any chance that she was unconscious when Cross and Paul left here and Jack was hiding only to finish the job when they left?

Mr Lucky`s intriguing theory has Paul leaving Cross alone with Nichols (based on Paul`s interview with the newspaper).

With Cross and Paul in Bucks Row, Mizen in Bakers Rows and Neil walking around the Board School it would have been tight for another individual to go unnoticed.

[FrankO]

Westbourne Wink has it right, Frank.

You’re as entitled to your opinion as the next guy, Fish.

Let me walk you through it.

Thanks, but no thanks, Fisherman. I know my stuff well enough and you only confuse things with this walking through.

What would Mizen do if this was the case?

Not be gullible and ask the 2 men some check questions instead of asking nothing at all? Not continue to knock up, but instead trust his fellow PC in the sense that if he called for help, he in fact needed help and so, not let him wait longer than necessary?

Then, when he saw Neil, he would have reasoned "Ah, there´s the PC the carman spoke of".
Would he ask "Are you the PC the carman spoke of?" No, that would be outright stupid. It was obvious to him that this was so.

This is interesting, Fish. Whatever happened to your following line of thinking??

“One detail that has gone missing in this discussion is how Mizen adds that "he" (not "they", for some VERY peculiar reason...?) did not say anything about any murder or suicide.

Have a look at this passage, and then you will see that thick-as-pigshit Mizen was rather a bright fellow. Any dumb PC would have reflected that Lechmere said nothing about a murder, since with a three-day retrospect, we would all know that it WAS a murder.

But Mizen instead realizes that the fellow PC that the carman had spoken of, would have sent him (Lechmere) and Paul to look for a fellow PC for the simple reason that he had discovered that the woman had had her throat cut.”
...
Mizen, bright and analytical as he obviously was - would surely have wondered WHY that fellow PC needed his assistence as he walked down Buck´s Row. And when he reached Neil, he was baffled about why he had not been told about the cut throat by the carmen, who to his mind MUST have known about it.”

And:

“Mizen´s line of thought was very logical:
1. A woman had been violently killed by knife.
2. A PC comes upon the body and sees what has happened.
3. The carmen appear, and the PC tells them what has happened and asks them to go for help.
4. ... so why did the carman not tell HIM, Mizen, what is was all about? Why casually speak of a woman that "had been found", leaving out the seriousness of the business?”

This sounds very logical indeed. But NOW you claim the logical next step would be NOT to check with Neil?!? You now even want to have us believe anything like that would be outright stupid?!? Very odd to say the least. But I’m sure you’re going to come up with something to try & explain how this would work.

When Mizen read about the first inquest day, he would read about Neil talking about how he found the body. He would not be perplexed about Neil taking on that role and not mentioning the two carmen, since they were not of importance to the investigation, and they were not the ones who had found the body - Neil had, and then the carmen had arrived, and Neil had sent them on to him.

I don´t hope you expect us to believe this, Christer. Neil painted a clear picture of what happened after discovering Nichols´ body. He was very detailed and it´s quite clear from his inquest statement that he didn´t send 2 men for any PC. Not in the least because he explicitly stated "The first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body were two men who worked at a slaughter-house opposite." and they clearly weren't the 2 carmen Mizen had seen.

All the best,
Frank

[Defective Detective]

Here's a decent question, I think, and in keeping with the spirit of the thread. It goes out to Fish, Lechmere, and other pro-Cross posters:

If Nichols had not been found by Cross/Lechmere - say she was found instead by another group of people later that morning, so that C/L's name never entered the case at all - would you then think that Hutchinson would be a good suspect?

I ask because he's the same 'kind' of suspect C/L is: a suspicious witness. Would you be more inclined to think of Hutchinson as a possible POI without C/L in the case?

[drstrange169]

"It would seem that Pickfords on Broad Street handled meat to a very large extent..."

Interesting comment that I'd like to know more detail about.

At this stage I would rule out Crossmere being a meat carrier, as he appeared at the inquest in his apron and I'm sure the press would have commented on a blood stained apron.

[Rosella]

"It would seem that Pickfords on Broad Street handled meat to a very large extent..."

Interesting comment that I'd like to know more detail about.

At this stage I would rule out Crossmere being a meat carrier, as he appeared at the inquest in his apron and I'm sure the press would have commented on a blood stained apron.

Crossmere might have worn a clean, freshly starched apron to a court appearance. After all, he was a married man! Don't meat handlers usually carry joints, legs of meat etc wrapped in muslin over one shoulder? The apron wouldn't necessarily have been bloodied.

[Lechmere]

Defective Detective
At least someone is on topic!
The similarities between Hutchinson and Lechmere are superficial.

Both came forward late - Lechmere after he was mentioned in a press report, Hutchinson after nothing really.

Both were witnesses - Lechmere was seen standing very close to a freshly murdered victim. Hutchinson came forward and placed himself in the street talking to the victim some time before she was killed.

Hutchinson courted his 15 minutes of fame with press interviews and accompanied the police on their patrols and had a look at the body in the mortuary.
Lechmere slipped in and out with the minimum of involvement.

We have reason to think the police involvement with Lechmere was not very thorough (his name not being recorded)
We know Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline.

We know Lechmere's places of interest (home, workplace, mother's house )and they can fit a pattern that explains the murder scenes.
We know nothing of Hutchinson's places of interest except he lived in the Victoria Home which had a late night curfew which would have made awkward for him to kill a series of victims after the curfew, as it would have drawn attention to his absence and mean that he had to wander the streets all night or book into an alternative lodging house on those nights, again drawing attention to himself.

We know who Lechmere was and aspects of his life fit the pattern for known serial killers.
Hutchinson was almost certainly Toppy Hutchinson, whose life does not fit that pattern at all.

So no, I would not regard Hutchinson as a likely candidate at all, although he is an interesting character in the overall story.

[drstrange169]

Hello Rosella,

Crossmere's wife might have been a cleanliness freak for all we know, but we can safely say he wasn't wearing a white apron;-)

Pickfords carmen wore sacking aprons. If Crossmere wanted to look smart, he wouldn't have turned up in his work clothes.

It might well be true about the muslin, but that would also scotch Fish's notions about bloodstained carts. Far too many variables in this theory so far.

[MrBarnett]

Defective Detective
At least someone is on topic!
The similarities between Hutchinson and Lechmere are superficial.

Both came forward late - Lechmere after he was mentioned in a press report, Hutchinson after nothing really.

Both were witnesses - Lechmere was seen standing very close to a freshly murdered victim. Hutchinson came forward and placed himself in the street talking to the victim some time before she was killed.

Hutchinson courted his 15 minutes of fame with press interviews and accompanied the police on their patrols and had a look at the body in the mortuary.
Lechmere slipped in and out with the minimum of involvement.

We have reason to think the police involvement with Lechmere was not very thorough (his name not being recorded)
We know Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline.

We know Lechmere's places of interest (home, workplace, mother's house )and they can fit a pattern that explains the murder scenes.
We know nothing of Hutchinson's places of interest except he lived in the Victoria Home which had a late night curfew which would have made awkward for him to kill a series of victims after the curfew, as it would have drawn attention to his absence and mean that he had to wander the streets all night or book into an alternative lodging house on those nights, again drawing attention to himself.

We know who Lechmere was and aspects of his life fit the pattern for known serial killers.
Hutchinson was almost certainly Toppy Hutchinson, whose life does not fit that pattern at all.

So no, I would not regard Hutchinson as a likely candidate at all, although he is an interesting character in the overall story.

However, there remains the possibility that Lechmere was an innocent, upstanding member of the community. A hard working family man who never put a foot wrong in his life.

Whereas if Hutch isn't the killer, what is he? The choices seem to be a would-be mugger, a wastrel looking for a freebie from a drunken prostitute or an attention seeker who is prepared to sidetrack a murder enquiry to boost his self importance or earn a few bob.

FYI, I voted for Lech because although his being there can be innocently explained, the other little niggles give him the edge in my opinion.

MrB

[Jon Guy]

Both were witnesses - Lechmere was seen standing very close to a freshly murdered victim. Hutchinson came forward and placed himself in the street talking to the victim some time before she was killed..

Yes, one finds a dead body, and the other interacts with the victim shortly before she is murdered.

We have reason to think the police involvement with Lechmere was not very thorough (his name not being recorded)

Most of the police files are lost, how do you know his name was not recorded ? Maybe, the police didn`t even interview him but you can`t say that for certain.

We know Lechmere's places of interest (home, workplace, mother's house )and they can fit a pattern that explains the murder scenes..

Can say that about nearly anyone.

We know nothing of Hutchinson's places of interest except he lived in the Victoria Home ..

Which is located at the centre of the killing fields

which had a late night curfew which would have made awkward for him to kill a series of victims after the curfew, as it would have drawn attention to his absence .

Less noticeable than someone`s wife noticing late night absence
With Hutchinson, we know he roamed the streets on the morning Kelly was murdered.

and mean that he had to wander the streets all night or book into an alternative lodging house on those nights, again drawing attention to himself..

Or roam the streets staying clear of the hot spots.

We know who Lechmere was and aspects of his life fit the pattern for known serial killers..

Did he have a police record .. for anything ?

[Lechmere]

Mr B
If Hutchinson wasn't the killer what was he?
I notice the most obvious and reasonable explanation eluded you.
Perhaps he was someone who came forward as he thought he had some useful information to help the investigation.