Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[GUT]

On Mizan what is Cross/Paul said

"You're needed in Buck's Row"

How easy for Mizan, when he finds Neil there to remember it as "a Policeman needs you there"?

[Fisherman]

Abby!

Just noticed that I missed out on answering a question of yours:

Mizen scam: what are the chances that lech lied and said their was a police man waiting for Mizen and lo and behold when he gets there, ones there?

Answer: That wholly depends on how closely Lechmere monitored Neils moves before moving in for the kill. If he knew which round he made, and if he knew where on the round he was, then he should be able to time Neils arrival in Buckīs Row pretty exactly.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

How do you imagine meat was transported by sea prior to refrigeration? In cans or barrels? So Lechmere's exposure to butchery and slaughtery (nice word) would be on a par with that of a housewife buying a can of corned beef from the corner shop.

I am not making these points just to diss your theory. I Genuinely do not believe that a carman transporting imported meat in the 1860's to 1880's would have have been exposed to very much bloody flesh.

I will risk the wrath of the Fisherman by assuming that the reasons for this appearing so significant to you is either that you feel the exposure to meat in some way triggered and sustained a fascination with the cutting of flesh or it provided him with a familiarity with the process that facilitated his ripping activities. If these are not the points you are trying to make, I humbly apologise.

If they are, then I have to disagree. Carrying a couple of barrels of salted pork into a butchers shop or waiting by his van outside Smithfield while the porters did their work would hardly have turned him into a ruthless and efficient killing machine.

MrB

I do not know whether the meat handled at Broad Street all came from abroad.
I am not saying that he MUST have developed a fantasy owing to his work at Broad Street - I am saying that he could have.
He may also have gained that fascination from the catīs meat business.

Arthur Ingram spoke of animal carcasses being shipped into the ports. I tend to think that he would know.

I would finally add that neither of us knows what made him snap the first time over - if he was the killer. I would not exclude that carrying a barrel of salted pork could have done the trick. It all depends on how a manīs mind wanders, Mr Barnett.
He could have first felt it when he carved a Sunday roast back home.
He could have carved into wood and imagined what it would feel like, if ....
He could have listened to a butcher and thought "Hey, I wanna do that!"
He could have seen a woman run over by a cart, having her gut exploded and distributed all over the street.
He could have dreamt about eviscerating.

We donīt need him to have any sort of deep involvement into the meat business, to accept that he could have been the killer. His lies, his routes and the overall picture of his meeting with Paul are much stronger indicators than staring down a pork chop can ever be.

At the end of the day, he WAS knit to the meat and butchery business, he MAY have developed fantasies as a result of that and he MAY have been involved in cutting up meat, either at a local butcherīs or alongside his horsehacking mother.

It really is not any stranger than that.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. It is always better to explain than to apologize. We sometimes misunderstand each other, and if we can avoid that, then we will both gain from it.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: Hi fish and lech
Just a couple of not related points.

Mizen scam: what are the chances that lech lied and said their was a police man waiting for Mizen and lo and behold when he gets there, ones there. In my mind, I still lean toward Mizen simply misrembering. However, it's on record that Mizen said that's what the carman told him, so I concede that you have the evidence on your side.

Having things on record stops very few Ripperologists, Abby, so Iīm glad that at least you recognize that the evidence is on our side.

I have all sorts of trouble accepting that Mizen would have misrembered things. It would predispose that he was NOT told about any PC in Buckīs Row, then he found one there, and for some very odd reason went "The carman must have said that there was a PC here".

Why would Mizen do that? Why would he even think it? Would the normal reaction not be "Oh, hereīs a colleague of mine - he must have arrived after the carmen were here."

Plus, of course, we can see in which scenario Mizenīs reactions pan out - the continued knocking up before he went to Buckīs Row does not fortify the suggestion that the carman told him there was an urgency, and Mizens failure to tell his superiors that Neil was wrong about being the first to find the body tells us that Lechmere DID lie about the other PC.

Drs/skill: it's no surprise that some of the drs would want to distance themselves and their profession from the killer, much the same way they did with the American dr wanting to procure specimens story. The amount of experts, then and now, who claim the ripper had some surgical skill and anatomical knowledge makes me think that was probably the case.

... and thatīs where it will get you: "probably". But not certainly. If you had banked on the amount of doctors then and now that told you that there was no skill, then you would think that he probably was unskilled. Probably. But not certainly.

I leave both options open myself. When it comes to Lechmere, his family was well versed in the catīs meat business, and there is every reason to think he may have helped out, cutting away to his heartīs delight (whatever THAT was...).

Torsos: I Beleive fish that this is the first time you have said that the torso killer and the ripper may have been the same man. I think that in all probability they were not, but Beleive in the possibility much more than most. Especially after Debra showed that all the torsos had evidence of abdominal mutilations.

Since I think that Lechmere was the killer, it would be very odd not to ponder him in the torso killerīs role. The Pinchin Street torso fits neatly with his geography, as you will know, and Lechmere was old enough to have killed the Battersea and Putney victims, in 1873 and 1874, respectively.

Itīs like I say - the carman has all sorts of bad luck, always being able to meet any demands, geographical ones as well as those related to timings. Now we can see that he would have dealt with meat for many years, so he fits that pattern too, if we wish to make it a demand. Some do.
Add to this that he was in his mid twenties when the torso murders began! George Chapman, suggested as the torso killer by Gordon, was eight by then, so Gordon stays well away from the early torso killings.

But Lechmere fits, agewise. Once again, he has the poor luck of being available for the accusation. Geographically and agewise, he spans the areas that need covering. And he had access to a horse and cart, absolutely necessary to be the torso killer.

I have no problems realizing that the sets of murders are different in character. But Peter Kürtens bludgeonings, his strangulations and his finishing people off with a pair of scissors are also different characterwise.

To me, it is obvious that we must try Lechmere in the torso killers role too and see if he fits. Others will say that I donīt care about the truth as long as I can accuse Lechmere of something, but I really couldnīt care less about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Actually, what Ingram says is that Broad Street catered to Smithfield market AND small local butcheries in the East End alike. Maybe you missed that point.
What Ingram spoke of was not pre-packaged meat - he spoke of animal carcasses being shipped in to the docks.

We may also need to consider that when you say that refrigeration was in itīs infancy in 1888, by that time Lechmere had been working for Pickfords for more than twenty years! And supposedly, refrigeration was not in itīs infancy in 1868 too ...?

Plus, of course, if refrigeration was in itīs infancy, then some of the transports may have been refrigerated whereas others may not have been in 1888.

Once again, and as many times as it takes: Much as Iīm sure itīs great fun to try and dismiss matters, it remains that Pickfords at Broad Street dealt with meat and slaughtery products to a large extent, and that Charles Lechmere was a carman in service there.

It is not the fact that Ripperologists will always try and diminish things that is of significance here, letīs keep that in mind - it is the fact that Lechmere can be tied to the meat and slaughtery business.

The best,
Fisherman

How do you imagine meat was transported by sea prior to refrigeration? In cans or barrels? So Lechmere's exposure to butchery and slaughtery (nice word) would be on a par with that of a housewife buying a can of corned beef from the corner shop.

I am not making these points just to diss your theory. I Genuinely do not believe that a carman transporting imported meat in the 1860's to 1880's would have have been exposed to very much bloody flesh.

I will risk the wrath of the Fisherman by assuming that the reasons for this appearing so significant to you is either that you feel the exposure to meat in some way triggered and sustained a fascination with the cutting of flesh or it provided him with a familiarity with the process that facilitated his ripping activities. If these are not the points you are trying to make, I humbly apologise.

If they are, then I have to disagree. Carrying a couple of barrels of salted pork into a butchers shop or waiting by his van outside Smithfield while the porters did their work would hardly have turned him into a ruthless and efficient killing machine.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Actually, what Ingram says is that Broad Street catered to Smithfield market AND small local butcheries in the East End alike. Maybe you missed that point.
What Ingram spoke of was not pre-packaged meat - he spoke of animal carcasses being shipped in to the docks.

We may also need to consider that when you say that refrigeration was in itīs infancy in 1888, by that time Lechmere had been working for Pickfords for more than twenty years! And supposedly, refrigeration was not in itīs infancy in 1868 too ...?

Plus, of course, if refrigeration was in itīs infancy, then some of the transports may have been refrigerated whereas others may not have been in 1888.

Once again, and as many times as it takes: Much as Iīm sure itīs great fun to try and dismiss matters, it remains that Pickfords at Broad Street dealt with meat and slaughtery products to a large extent, and that Charles Lechmere was a carman in service there.

It is not the fact that Ripperologists will always try and diminish things that is of significance here, letīs keep that in mind - it is the fact that Lechmere can be tied to the meat and slaughtery business.

The best,
Fisherman

How do you imagine meat was transported by sea prior to refrigeration? In cans or barrels? So Lechmere's exposure to butchery and slaughtery (nice word) would be on a par with that of a housewife buying a can of corned beef from the corner shop.

I am not making these points just to diss your theory. I Genuinely do not believe that a carman transporting imported meat in the 1860's to 1880's would have have been exposed to very much bloody flesh.

I will risk the wrath of the Fisherman by assuming that the reasons for this appearing so significant to you is either that you feel the exposure to meat in some way triggered and sustained a fascination with the cutting of flesh or it provided him with a familiarity with the process that facilitated his ripping activities. If these are not the points you are trying to make, I humbly apologise.

If they are, then I have to disagree. Carrying a couple of barrels of salted pork into a butchers shop or waiting by his van outside Smithfield while the porters did their work would hardly have turned him into a ruthless and efficient killing machine.

MrB

[Abby Normal]

Hi fish and lech
Just a couple of not related points.

Mizen scam: what are the chances that lech lied and said their was a police man waiting for Mizen and lo and behold when he gets there, ones there. In my mind, I still lean toward Mizen simply misrembering. However, it's on record that Mizen said that's what the carman told him, so I concede that you have the evidence on your side.

Drs/skill: it's no surprise that some of the drs would want to distance themselves and their profession from the killer, much the same way they did with the American dr wanting to procure specimens story. The amount of experts, then and now, who claim the ripper had some surgical skill and anatomical knowledge makes me think that was probably the case.

Torsos: I Beleive fish that this is the first time you have said that the torso killer and the ripper may have been the same man. I think that in all probability they were not, but Beleive in the possibility much more than most. Especially after Debra showed that all the torsos had evidence of abdominal mutilations.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Fish, the significance is lost on me.

In 1888 refrigeration of meat for marine transport was in it's infancy. Prior to that, canning and salting were the methods chiefly used.

I fail to see how twenty years of loading boxes or barrels of pre-packaged meat on to a cart provides someone with either the incentive or the skill required to be JTR.

I'm glad your expert confirms what seemed common sense to me, that Lechmere's role as as cart driver did not require him to carve a few cutlets en route. And he almost certainly carried a knife, many working men did.

Pity your scoop didn't place him at the smaller slaughterhouses, there might have more scope there for him to develop his blood lust and perhaps get involved in a bit of under the counter meat dealing.

MrB

Actually, what Ingram says is that Broad Street catered to Smithfield market AND small local butcheries in the East End alike. Maybe you missed that point.
What Ingram spoke of was not pre-packaged meat - he spoke of animal carcasses being shipped in to the docks.

We may also need to consider that when you say that refrigeration was in itīs infancy in 1888, by that time Lechmere had been working for Pickfords for more than twenty years! And supposedly, refrigeration was not in itīs infancy in 1868 too ...?

Plus, of course, if refrigeration was in itīs infancy, then some of the transports may have been refrigerated whereas others may not have been in 1888.

Once again, and as many times as it takes: Much as Iīm sure itīs great fun to try and dismiss matters, it remains that Pickfords at Broad Street dealt with meat and slaughtery products to a large extent, and that Charles Lechmere was a carman in service there.

It is not the fact that Ripperologists will always try and diminish things that is of significance here, letīs keep that in mind - it is the fact that Lechmere can be tied to the meat and slaughtery business.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

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

Sorry, Fish, the significance is lost on me.

In 1888 refrigeration of meat for marine transport was in it's infancy. Prior to that, canning and salting were the methods chiefly used.

I fail to see how twenty years of loading boxes or barrels of pre-packaged meat on to a cart provides someone with either the incentive or the skill required to be JTR.

I'm glad your expert confirms what seemed common sense to me, that Lechmere's role as as cart driver did not require him to carve a few cutlets en route. And he almost certainly carried a knife, many working men did.

Pity your scoop didn't place him at the smaller slaughterhouses, there might have more scope there for him to develop his blood lust and perhaps get involved in a bit of under the counter meat dealing.

MrB

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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