Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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!

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

[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]

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"?

No, not at all. He would have interpreted "You are needed in Buckīs Row" as a general statement that there was a situation in Buckīs Row that required his presence. As a policeman, he would reasonably have been used to having people approach him and tell him that his presence was needed in different places and for different reasons, and once such a request was made, there would normally NOT be another PC present. In such cases, his presence would NOT be needed - the other PC would tend to the situation. When there is already a PC in place, people donīt go around telling PC:s in adjoining blocks that they are needed to tend to a situation already in another PC:s hand.

The construction as such is remarkable: You are needed in Buckīs Row. Another policeman wants you there." Thatīs not something you would hear every day!

Besides, none of the words in the phrase "You are needed in Buckīs Row" even faintly resembles "policeman".

This construction is one made specifically to try and explain away what was actually said - and recorded. It lacks logic, it lacks a word that could be confused for "police" and it lacks substantiation in the records.

Itīs an alternative interpretation that has nothing going for it. Thatīs just how it is.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. And Paul said NOTHING!

[GUT]

But it ncludes real life experience with people remembering things the way that they want to.

[MrBarnett]

[ATTACH]16405[/ATTACH]

Fish,

You must have seen this sort of image before. A typical Victorian butchers display. Lechmere, along with the rest of the population, would have walked past this kind of thing pretty much every day of his life.

Familiarity with such sights was not limited to Pickfords Broad Street employees.

MrB

[Harry D]

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?

Do you mean to say that ISN'T what you're doing, Fish?

Also, I'm still waiting to hear your explanation for why Crossmere stopped killing. I know you'll probably have recourse to Dennis Rader, who stopped for a period, but he's the exception, not the rule, no? And need I remind you that Rader inevitably started up again.

[GUT]

[ATTACH]16405[/ATTACH]

MrB

Butchers?

[MrBarnett]

Yes, GUT. I posted the image before adding the text. Sorry!