Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[MrBarnett]

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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[Harry D]

To me, that is quite enough.

Of course it is.

[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

[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

[Fisherman]

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.

Another explanation may lie in Nichols being very freshly cut as Paul saw her. Maybe the pool of blood had not expanded enough beneath her to be visible when looking at her from above.
Neil saw the blood readily, but he arrived minutes later, when more blood would have escaped her body.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I will try to be patient.

Don't get me wrong, this is a very interesting development as far as I am concerned. I'm particularly interested in the connection between the slaughterhouses in the East End and the Metropolitan Cattle Market in Islington.

MrB

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 bussiness, 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

[Fisherman]

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.

... or that you constantly underrate the value of my argument. Any coin has two sides, remember.
As an aside, you are welcome to point more specifically to what it is you think I overstate. Maybe we can sort things out and see more eye to eye on the matters.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Prosector, perhaps you can answer this over there: do you think an experienced slaughterman or butcher would have the necessary knowledge and skill ?

.. or perhaps someone whose mum ran a cats meat shop ?

[Jon Guy]

Ed

I said we had ‘reason to think’ that the police interaction with Lechmere as not very thorough because the police records that we do have – as late as seven weeks after his interaction – only record his name as Cross.

The whole Lechmere/Cross thing could have been cleared up in his now missing witness statement, which he obviously signed as Cross, and that was the name the Police referred to thereon.

In contrast we have it stated in black and white that Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline.
I hope you can see the difference there...

Yes, Hutchinson`s witness statement survives !!

So you think you can say about ‘nearly everyone’ that the places they are most closely linked to ‘can fit a pattern that explains the murder scenes’?
Actually I think you will be pushed to find any named suspects where you can do that – or indeed any unnamed nobodies.
...

I`m pretty sure I can link most people living in the area at the time to the murder sites. Except silly ones like Isenschmid, who can`t even be placed in Whitechapel. I`ve already put forward a couple of "nobodies" as suspects, based on the flimsy links required to be a Ripper suspect.

I am puzzled why you thought it worthy to mention that Hutchinson’s late night absences from the Victoria Home would be ‘less noticeable than someone`s wife noticing late night absence’.
.

We already discussed this earlier this week !!
It`s common sense.

If this is a reference to Lechmere’s wife then I assume you are unaware of Lechmere’s early hours start at Pickfords which would mean his wife would be none the wiser. But of course you are aware of Lechmere’s work schedule (OK presumed work schedule) so I am a bit mystified why you said this.
.

Okay, so Charles walks through his front door at 2.15am on Sunday 30th Sept. How does he explain that, especially when the first thing his wife hears the next morning is the news of the murders.
Would he say he was at his mum`s till 2am?

Which are the hot spots that a guilty Hutchinson could avoid on a murder night after he had slain a victim and may well have some blood on his person? Any random beat patrol by any random policeman perhaps?
I would suggest that wandering the streets (or even hiding in a stairwell) until the lodging houses reopen would not be a very safe course of action. You may feel otherwise of course. I am not suggesting it is impossible that the culprit could have just wandered the streets in such a manner but I think it more likely that he took refuge in some sort of reasonably local bolt hole, and when weighing up the two likelihoods – the bolt hole option is superior to the wandering option.

But hey! That’s just me..

...and I would wander into Poplar or wherever.
If a copper did approach me on say, Shoreditch High Street I would run, or at least get out of his way before he saw me.

Did Hutchinson have a police record for anything?.

I don`t know, but if I was a betting man, my money would be on him having some sort of history with the police. Anyone who has to roam the streets of Whitechapel, I would view as a little bit dodgy.

I’m not sure why you brought that up anyway as I did not make reference to either of them having a police record.

I brought it up as most modern serial killers have a police record, and didn`t you state that aspects of his life fit the pattern for known serial killers

You also state that No one at the time suggested Hutchinson`s behaviour was what we would now characterise as ‘stalking’.. But isn`t this one of those things that you state that we now know but possibly not back then ?

[MrBarnett]

Mr B
Plenty of over enthusiastic witnesses go into too much detail which is the product of their over enthusiastic minds - nothing necessarily sinister involved.

Of all the known witnesses connected to the WM, was there another who went into such detail? (Genuine question, I don't know the answer).