Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

FrankO:

Not be gullible and ask the 2 men some check questions instead of asking nothing at all?

Gullible? Think again, Frank - why would a man that had killed a woman seek out a police? Mizen would have felt reassured that he was being told the truth.
It was only Pauls arrival that forced Lechmere to speak to Mizen - and thatīs a very complicated thing to see through.

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?

Mizen could be relatively sure that it was not a very serious matter. The PC that had sent the carmen could not have banked on them doing what they were supposed to to begin with. Lechmere supposedly told him a story that did not sound unsettling. Finally, Frank, IF it had been an errand that called for immediate help. then Mizen would arguably have expected to hear his colleagues whistle.

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 Buckīs 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:

“Mizenīs 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.

I donīt see your problem - and I fear you donīt see the logic of what happened.
Mizen was sent for the ambulance, immediately. He had little choice but to get busy immediately.

But letīs explore your suggestion anyway - you think that Mizen would have spoken to Neil about himself having been deprived of the knowledge about how serious the errand was, is that correct? Sort of "What? A cut throat? But the men you sent to get me said nothing about that!"

In a sense, yes - it would have been a remark that Mizen COULD have made. Then again, if Mizen was told that another PC awaited him in Buckīs Row, then he would have expected this other PC to have the situation in hand. It would have been Neils errand, and if Neil chose to handle it with as little fuss as possible, perhaps not letting on exactly what had happened to the woman to the carmen, then it would have been his choice to make.
All we can tell is that Mizen was surprised that the carmen did not tell him, and that tells us that Mizen would have expected the other PC to have told the carmen about it. If he didnīt, then he didnīt, and it would have been out of Mizens control anyway.


I donīt hope you expect us to believe this, Christer. Neil painted a clear picture of what happened after discovering Nicholsī body. He was very detailed and itīs quite clear from his inquest statement that he didnīt 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.


See, this is why I say you are not grasping what I am speaking about. I KNOW that Neil "painted a clear picture" od what happened. And I KNOW that he explicitly denied any two men being involved in his finding the body.

The reason for this was that John Neil was convinced that he had been the person who first found the body of Polly Nichols!

But where does that leave Mizen, if that carman told him the truth? If he told him that THEY had been the first finders of the body? If he had said nothing about another PC awaiting him in Buckīs Row?

If so, Mizen would have faced a situation where he KNEW that Neil was not aware of the two carmen, and that Neil MISTAKENLY supposed that HE was the one to first find Nichols.

That is why I am saying that if the carman told it as it was, then Mizen would have ben obliged to correct Neil after the first day of the inquest. Mizen would have realized that the carmen had first found Nichools, and then they left, whereafter Neil arrived, unaware that the carmen had been there before him, and consequently Neil thought that he had been the one to first find the body. Which is PRECISELY what he claims!

However, Frank, if Mizen was lied to by the carman, and told that another PC awaited him in Buckīs Row, then he would have thought that Neil WAS that other PC - and the pieces would all have fit! So Mizen would NOT have been obliged to correct anything.

I hope you can see what I am talking about now, Frank. It is complex, itīs a game of mirrors, and not everybody will easily see the different bits and pieces and how they fit the frame. But the fact is that Mizenīs actions can only be understood and justified if he was lied to.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Okay, I am back, and I have found out a little bit more. The source I used earlier was seemingly a bit overoptimistic, and therefore I need to correct myself.
Pickfords in Broad Street handled different commodities. Meat was a very large part of their business, though, and what Arthur Ingram says is that loading, carting and delivering meat would have been part of Lechmereīs job.

To me, that is quite enough. What I see in the Whitechapel killer is a fascination with cutting up carcasses, and Lechmere would have worked in close proximity to such matters. The connection is there, and thatīs what matters.

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fish,

I trust you had an enjoyable break.

Did your informant explain the logistics of the meat operation out of Broad Street? Did the meat arrive by train, or was it just the case that meat vans were based there and went out each day to pick up cargo from either the slaughterhouses or Smithfield? This of course has implications for how much exposure Lech would have had to butchery/slaughtering.

How does your informant know that Lechmere was involved with the meat operation specifically?

MrB

[Harry D]

To me, that is quite enough.

Of course it is.

[Fisherman]

This hoary old argument about anatomical skill comes up yet again. I have written about it many times before but here goes again:

Bond, although he was nominally a surgeon at the Westminster, had almost no operating experience (read his obituary in the BMJ) as he only saw patients in the Out Patient Department. The only body he saw was MJK's and that was far too mutilated to say whether anatomical/surgical skill was involved except for the removal of the heart.

Phillips was easily the most experienced of all the police surgeons and he adamantly thought that anatomical knowledge and a little surgical skill was involved in all the cases.

As an ex-surgeon and teacher of anatomy I totally agree with Phillips for reasons too involved to go into here. I have a book being published next year which deals with it in much more depth. Suffice it say that my views are shared by many of my professional colleagues including Professor Harold Ellis, ex Professor of Surgery at the Westminster (Bond's old hospital) and probably the greatest living anatomist in the world.

Sorry to sound pompous but I really do think that questions of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge are best left to surgeons and anatomists who have actually carried out the same procedures themselves.

Prosector

Im am not a physician, and therefore I lean against what I read from different sources.

If it had been a very colear case, then there would be no disagreement - we would all know that either A or B applied.

We donīt, however, and to me that speaks about a case that is much less than clear.

Some say it took skill, others say it did not. There are medicos speaking for both sides.

As for Bond and his experience, much reliance was put upon him by for example Anderson. If he had no idea himself, I think we must accept that he consulted with colleagues that did. And he was not alone in his judgement - other contemporary medicos agreed.

As for Kelly, I think it is slightly odd to say that she was a victim that disenabled to tell if there was experience or not. I think Stride would make a better candidate in that respect, owing to the lack of cuts. With Kelly, there were hundreds of cuts - each one saying something about the man who performed the cut. How he angled the knife, how deeply he cut, if he cut where a surgeon would cut, how he opened the abdominal cavity, how he cut out the many organs. I completely fail to see why she would not offer the BEST option to check how much skill the killer posessed.

As an aside, I an not saying that the killer did not posess skill - I am saying that I cannot swear that he did or that he didnīt since the jury is out on the matter.
Personally, I think that the torso killer and the Ripper may be one and the same, for example, and in the torso killings the doctors agreed that there WAS skill involved.

I also favour Charles Lechmere as the killer, and there is reason to think that he was involved in the catīs meat business, so he could have aquired skill from that.

I appreciate that you have made your mind up for a skilled killer. My problem is that other people with medical experience have told me that there was no skill or not much skill, and I do not posess the knowledge to decide whoīs right and whoīs wrong. Therefore, I will not accept one voice over the other - I instead leave it open.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

I trust you had an enjoyable break.

Did your informant explain the logistics of the meat operation out of Broad Street? Did the meat arrive by train, or was it just the case that meat vans were based there and went out each day to pick up cargo from either the slaughterhouses or Smithfield? This of course has implications for how much exposure Lech would have had to butchery/slaughtering.

How does your informant know that Lechmere was involved with the meat operation specifically?

MrB

As I understood things, the meat that came to to Broad Street was apparently predominantly meat shipped in from the sea and brought to the depot, like for example South-american meat. I donīt know if there were other distribution channels leading meat to Broad Street. From there it was distributed to Smithfield market and local butchers.

The volumes were of such proportions so as to ensure that Lechmere or any carman that worked for a long period of time in Broad Street would have been involved with it.

That is all I can tell. And like I say, to me itīs enough.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Of course it is.

If you are displeased, you need to be clearer. I have said - and I stand by - that a fascination with meat and meathandling is what we should look for, not necessarily surgical skill to transplant sheepīs hearts.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

If you are displeased, you need to be clearer. I have said - and I stand by - that a fascination with meat and meathandling is what we should look for, not necessarily surgical skill to transplant sheepīs hearts.

Simply put, Fish, you are looking for answers to support your theory rather than looking for answers to support the truth.

[MrBarnett]

As I understood things, the meat that came to to Broad Street was apparently predominantly meat shipped in from the sea and brought to the depot, like for example South-american meat. I donīt know if there were other distribution channels leading meat to Broad Street. From there it was distributed to Smithfield market and local butchers.

The volumes were of such proportions so as to ensure that Lechmere or any carman that worked for a long period of time in Broad Street would have been involved with it.

That is all I can tell. And like I say, to me itīs enough.

The best,
Fisherman

So this was meat packaged for sea transportation that Lechmere simply dropped off at Smithfield, say. No reason for any ad hoc trimming by the Pickfords man and indeed no reason why he would necessarily have any exposure to the butchery process at all. He would arrive at the loading area where a Smithfield porter would be waiting to receive the delivery. And that's where his involvement would most likely have ended.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/43/main/48/126949.jpg

[Fisherman]

Simply put, Fish, you are looking for answers to support your theory rather than looking for answers to support the truth.

If that was true (which it of course is not) I would still think it more honourable than any crusade to discredit another poster, no matter what, Harry.

Hereīs how it works:

You tell me that you are going to need proof of butchery or anatomical skills to justify suspecting anybody as the Ripper.

I give you a very good reason to knit Lechmere to the butchery and meat trade.

And what happens? Do you go: "Wow, thatīs something we should look at"?

No, you go : "You only say that in support of your theory, and not in support of the truth."

Which is amazing.

Has it occurred to you that my theory and the truth may be one and the same? That they are perhaps not mutually exclusive?

Has it not yet dawned on you that it IS the truth that the Broad Street depot handled meat to a very significant extent, as per a renowned expert?

It is YOU, not I, that require things from the killer that we do not know if they apply or not.
You want a mentally challenged man, whereas there is no evidence at all that such a man was responsible. On the contrary, the evidence speaks of a quiet, stealthy killer, knowing that he was doing wrongful things, thus fleeing the scenes before he could be caught.
You want surgical skill, more or less, although there is no overall recognition of any such need at all. Some say that he need not have the knowledge of a butcher, even.

And then, when one of your requirements is to some degree met, you say that it has nothing to do with the truth...? That it is all about a wish to support my theory?

Why would I NOT wish to support my theory? Why would I NOT present facts that seemingly give it weight?

You are an interesting character in many ways. One to learn from.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

You can see from the image that the vans parked outside the market and the meat was collected and taken in by Smithfield porters (known as 'bumarees'). As in most of the London markets, the portering was pretty much a closed shop, jealously guarded by generations of families.

The chances of Lech being able to touch the meat after it Left his van are almost zero.

MrB

[Fisherman]

So this was meat packaged for sea transportation that Lechmere simply dropped off at Smithfield, say. No reason for any ad hoc trimming by the Pickfords man and indeed no reason why he would necessarily have any exposure to the butchery process. He would arrive at the loading bay where a Smithfield porter would be waiting to receive the delivery. And that's where his involvement would most likely have ended.

MrB

Arthur Ingram says that he would probably not expect the carmen to have done any trimming - it would have been handled by the butchers.
He does agree, however, that it seems completely logical to expect that carmen would have carried knives to be able to cut their harnesses in the events of accidents.

The parts I think that Lechmere would have been involved in would be loading, carting and unloading the meat. It could have involved carrying animal carcasses with their entrails taken out, as far as I understand. Whether porters carried his load into Smithfield market, I donīt know. I think we must be open to either alternative. And that would also apply to whatever local butcheries he would have delivered to - maybe the carman unloaded the meat and carried it inside, maybe the butcher did it or maybe they cooperated.

No matter what applies, the significance as such of course lies with the Broad Street depot being a place where meat was handled to a large extent. It places Lechmere close to the meat and butchery business for a twenty-year period.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

If that was true (which it of course is not) I would still think it more honourable than any crusade to discredit another poster, no matter what, Harry.

Hereīs how it works:

You tell me that you are going to need proof of butchery or anatomical skills to justify suspecting anybody as the Ripper.

I give you a very good reason to knit Lechmere to the butchery and meat trade.

And what happens? Do you go: "Wow, thatīs something we should look at"?

No, you go : "You only say that in support of your theory, and not in support of the truth."

Which is amazing.

Has it occurred to you that my theory and the truth may be one and the same? That they are perhaps not mutually exclusive?

Has it not yet dawned on you that it IS the truth that the Broad Street depot handled meat to a very significant extent, as per a renowned expert?

It is YOU, not I that require things from the killer that we do not know if they apply or not.
You want a mentally challenged man, whereas there is no evidence at all that such a man was responsible. On the contrary, the evidence speaks of a quiet, stealthy killer, knowing that he was doing wrongful things, thus fleeing the scenes before he could be caught.
You want surgical skill, more or less, although there is no overall recognition of any such need at all. Some say that he need not have the knowledge of a butcher, even.

And then, when one of your requirements is met, you say that it has nothing to do with the truth...? That it is all about a wish to support my theory?

Why would I NOT wish to support my theory? Why would I NOT present facts that seemingly give it weight?

You are an interesting character in many ways. One to learn from.

The best,
Fisherman

Like I said, Fish, when people get an idea into their heads (be it regarding politics, religion, or whodunnits in Victorian England) their search for the 'truth' is actually a search for anything that will reinforce their own preconceived notions of the truth. You're viewing events through the lens of so-called knowledge that Crossmere was the Ripper, and therefore even the possibility that he delivered meat expands into this whole concept that he would've been exposed to butchering, despite the lack of evidence to backup such a claim. That is why I picked out that specific line from your post "To me, that is quite enough", because the man was already guilty in your book.

[Fisherman]

Like I said, Fish, when people get an idea into their heads (be it regarding politics, religion, or whodunnits in Victorian England) their search for the 'truth' is actually a search for anything that will reinforce their own preconceived notions of the truth. You're viewing events through the lens of so-called knowledge that Crossmere was the Ripper, and therefore even the possibility that he delivered meat expands into this whole concept that he would've been exposed to butchering, despite the lack of evidence to backup such a claim. That is why I picked out that specific line from your post "To me, that is quite enough", because the man was already guilty in your book.

He WOULD have been exposed to the trade of butchering, Harry. Meat is the result of butchering.
I am not saying that he did the butchering himself, I am saying that he seemingly spent twenty years in close association with the meat and butchery trade.

Whether it would have contributed to his wish to cut into human bodies or not if he was the killer, there is no knowing. It is not I that make claims that there must have been skill and training - it is you.
What I am saying is that working close to these forms of trade may have fuelled his imagination and perhaps created a fascination with cutting into meat or handling dead meat.

Which of these parts is it that is hard to grasp? Which is not true? There are examples of people who have developed fantasies about cutting into people after having been exposed to the butchery trade, so whereīs your problem?

By the way, thatīs what my comment that itīs enough for me applies to - it is not enough to prove that he was a killer (I am not that daft), but being connected to the meat and butchery business is enough to tell me that he may have developed fantasies about killing from that connection.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Like I said, Fish, when people get an idea into their heads (be it regarding politics, religion, or whodunnits in Victorian England) their search for the 'truth' is actually a search for anything that will reinforce their own preconceived notions of the truth.

So that means that once you got it into your head that I am trying to fit up Lechmere, you are ready to go to any lengths to corroborate this view of yours, no matter if you are wrong or not?

I see.

Fisherman