Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[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.

[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?

[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, thereīs 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 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.

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 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.

All the best,
Frank

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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]

G'day Bridewell

Mercifully they had more sense than to do so. They would never have secured a conviction.

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.

[Bridewell]

if the police had realized that Lechmere was alone with the victim for an unknown period of time, that there was nobody leaving the spot, whereafter Nichols was found dead and Llewellyn said that she died at the very earliest around 3.40, something that was followed by the false name and the Mizen scam, then they WOULD have charged him with murder.


Like it or not, but it is a very useful court case, based on circumstantial evidence.

Point by point:

Lechmere was with Nichols for an unknown period of time

and therefore there is nothing to counter the explanation given by Lechmere as to how long he had been there. There is no evidence as to how long Lechmere had been there except his own account.

There was nobody leaving the spot.

No-one was seen by either Lechmere or Paul. That doesn't mean that an unknown killer had not doubled back onto Winthrop Street. The only thing it does mean is that, insofar as is possible in the circumstances, Paul corroborates what Lechmere says.

Nichols was found dead.

By Lechmere - according to Lechmere. So he may have been telling the truth - or he may have been lying. What we can't do is square the circle by saying that he could have been lying, therefore he was lying - because he was the killer.

Llewellyn said that she died at the very earliest around 3.40

And the key word in that statement is 'around'.

something that was followed by the false name

The 'false' name being that of his former stepfather - so not really 'false' at all.

and the Mizen scam

Has the so-called Mizen scam now become proven fact then, Fish? In your Rip article you conceded that it was no more than one of two possibilities. I know which of the two you prefer to believe, but that doesn't make it any more than your preferred interpretation of the facts.

then they WOULD have charged him with murder.

Mercifully they had more sense than to do so. They would never have secured a conviction.

Like it or not, but it is a very useful court case, based on circumstantial evidence.

WHAT? It is nothing of the kind. Reasonable cause to suspect, even if you think it amounts to that, is a long way from being sufficient evidence to charge, let alone convict. You don't hang a man on suspicion, however sincerely held.
I spent 13 years as a Custody Sergeant evaluating the sufficiency or otherwise of evidence. Charles Allen Lechmere - Refused Charge. That doesn't mean that he cannot have been guilty, but there is no evidence that he was anything other than what he claimed to be. Don't take my word for it (I'm sure you won't!). Ask any criminal lawyer of your acquaintance whether or not a man could be convicted and hanged on what we know of Lechmere and the Nichols murder. You don't hang a man on circumstantial evidence and certainly not when the known facts are consistent with his own account.

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

Llewellyn said that she died at the very earliest around 3.40,

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.

[Bridewell]

Strangely enough some in the 'Hutch camp' claim that he gave a false name and true address to the police... to make him seem more guilty.

And it doesn't work, does it. It doesn't work for Hutchinson - and it doesn't work for Lechmere. But then I am in neither camp so I have no axe to grind one way or the other.

An explanation to why he hid his name has been given hundreds of times.

Several explanations have been given, yours more than most, but does an explanation become more believable just because it is oft repeated?

[Fisherman]

Fair enough, Fisherman. I'm happy to call it quits as we seem to have reached a deadlock. I certainly don't begrudge anyone their pet suspects, it was just the whole "the police probably would've charged Crossmere" line that I thought overstepped the mark, given the lack of damning evidence against him (and any suspect, for that matter).

If that was what you disliked, then you still canīt stand me; I am of the exact same opinion now as I was then - if the police had realized that Lechmere was alone with the victim for an unknown period of time, that there was nobody leaving the spot, whereafter Nichols was found dead and Llewellyn said that she died at the very earliest around 3.40, something that was followed by the false name and the Mizen scam, then they WOULD have charged him with murder.

Like it or not, but it is a very useful court case, based on circumstantial evidence.

Otherwise, I donīt begrudge you your pet suspect either - but given what we have on him, just how close to a court case can we bring Jacob Levy? We cant even put him on the bus to the courtroom, can we?

Thatīs where I think our two suspects differ a lot.

I could go on for another hour about this - but I could also leave it. I choose the latter alternative, and wish you the best of luck researching and supporting Levy as a suspect!

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Fair enough, Fisherman. I'm happy to call it quits as we seem to have reached a deadlock. I certainly don't begrudge anyone their pet suspects, it was just the whole "the police probably would've charged Crossmere" line that I thought overstepped the mark, given the lack of damning evidence against him (and any suspect, for that matter).

Where's the like button. Especially the part in parenthesis.