Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Sally]

What I think we need is a documentary on Hutchinson.

[Chris]

Once again, what is your problem with the interpretation that he wanted the police not to be able to suspect him, but his wife and aquaintances not to be able to make him out?

There were three elements involved:
1. His name
2. His address
3. His working place

Make the assumption that he wanted to stay unsuspected by the police and undetected by those close to him. He would have no reason at all to lie about any of the parameters when speaking to the police. In fact, he would want to come as close as possible to being very clear about all three points.

However, the exact opposite applies when it comes to having it revealed in the papers - he would want to obscure as much as possible in that department.

So, ideally, he would use the information "Charles Allen Lechmere, 22 Doveton Street, working at Pickfords", when speaking to the police. That way, he could be sure that they would not suspect him on grounds of having misinformed them.

And, equally ideally, he would want to tell the inquest that he was "Rowan Pumpernickel, 16 Bath Street, working at Billingsgate market". That way, he could be sure that family and friends would not recognize him.

There was a slight problem, though - he could not get away with lying openly about it all. So he would have planned what to say in the respective arenas, cop shop and inquest room, to make it pan out.

That would have meant that heneeded to keep his real name out of the story he told the police, since he would have to repeat it at the inquest. But he also needed not to have the police suspect him. Therefore he needed a name that his family and aquiantances would not recognize him by, but that would not be an inexplicable lie. So he opten for the explicable lie "Cross".

The address he skipped over, since it would also make him recognizable.

I must admit I've never understood what the suggested explanation was for Lechmere/Cross giving a supposedly false surname to the police, while giving his correct address.

I've just found Fisherman's scenario, quoted above. But it appears to rely on the idea that he could have refused to give an address when he gave evidence at the inquest. That seems an astonishing suggestion. Has any evidence ever been produced to support this idea?

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry!

There are a number of unsolved murders where Lechmere can be logically placed near the spots.
I will not give these murders away, since there is work proceeding on a book about Lechmere as the killer.

I have told you a zillion times that I don´t think he stopped killing in 1888. That stands, but I will not provide the examples; they are not my research. But they are there.

Otherwise, generally speaking, I know quite well that serialists very often keep on killing until they are halted for some reason. I do not think it is something that will hold true in all cases, though - a close shave could well have ended the carreers of some of these guys, as could changed circumstances in some form.

That´s not to say that you are wrong - you are not. The statistics are on your side - if the Ripper was not killed, taken ill, incarcerated or fled the country, he would arguably go on killing in the area. And - just like I say - I think that Lechmere DID go on killing.

You seem to think that if he went on killing, he must have done so employing the exact same MO as in the Ripper series. I disagree with that - I think he could well have been done with the ripping, perhaps throwing in a less than enthusiastic effort on MacKenzie and then abandoning something that did not give him what he was looking for anymore. That´s just a guess, but a guess that works for me.

The best,
Fisherman

Do you really and honestly believe that all the six murders you higlight in the program were the work of the same killer ?

[Kaz]

I must admit I've never understood what the suggested explanation was for Lechmere/Cross giving a supposedly false surname to the police, while giving his correct address.

A name he had when he was a child (his stepfathers surname), in all the 120 official documents charting his life one names him as 'cross'. Certainly strange to use a name from your childhood? And to lie about an officer already at the scene to another??

[Chris]

A name he had when he was a child (his stepfathers surname), in all the 120 official documents charting his life one names him as 'cross'. Certainly strange to use a name from your childhood? And to lie about an officer already at the scene to another??

What I'm asking for is evidence for the extraordinary claim that Lechmere/Cross could have refused to give his address at the inquest.

Because the explanation suggested by Fisherman above relies on the idea that he could have done that. Otherwise, what would have been the point of giving a false surname, but the correct address?

[Abby Normal]

What I'm asking for is evidence for the extraordinary claim that Lechmere/Cross could have refused to give his address at the inquest.

Because the explanation suggested by Fisherman above relies on the idea that he could have done that. Otherwise, what would have been the point of giving a false surname, but the correct address?

Hi Chris
if guilty: it might help keep his more commonly used name out of the papers and hidden from people putting it together-whether family members or pressmen, etc. Since technically it is his name(one of them), if found out by the police its not as damming as giving a totally false address.He could come up with some excuse for giving it without actually lying, whereas there could be no unsuspicious reason for giving a false address.

However, I suspect he innocently used the name cross in this instance because he was known as cross at Pickfords, since he started work there some 20 years earlier while still under the auspices of his stepfather Cross and was probably commonly using that name at that time he started there.
And of course it would help keep his family protected from undue attention.
And of course, since his stepdad Cross was cop, im sure he thought it would go over well while dealing with the police.

[Chris]

if guilty: it might help keep his more commonly used name out of the papers and hidden from people putting it together-whether family members or pressmen, etc. Since technically it is his name(one of them), if found out by the police its not as damming as giving a totally false address.He could come up with some excuse for giving it without actually lying, whereas there could be no unsuspicious reason for giving a false address.

Yes, that's more or less what Fisherman was suggesting in what I quoted above, but it would only work if his address could be kept out of the papers too. So the suggestion was that he had refused to give his address in court.

That's what I'm asking about. Is there any evidence to support the extraordinary claim that he could have refused to give his address in court?

[GUT]

And, equally ideally, he would want to tell the inquest that he was "Rowan Pumpernickel, 16 Bath Street, working at Billingsgate market". That way, he could be sure that family and friends would not recognize him.

There was a slight problem, though - he could not get away with lying openly about it all. So he would have planned what to say in the respective arenas, cop shop and inquest room, to make it pan out.

If the police were to stupid to even visit Pickfords and make the most basic of inquiries why not use Rowan Pumpernickel?

[GUT]

G'day Abby

However, I suspect he innocently used the name cross in this instance because he was known as cross at Pickfords, since he started work there some 20 years earlier while still under the auspices of his stepfather Cross and was probably commonly using that name at that time he started there.
And of course it would help keep his family protected from undue attention.
And of course, since his stepdad Cross was cop, im sure he thought it would go over well while dealing with the police.

All clear and logical reasons to use Cross that are totally consistent with innocence.

[Kaz]

G'day Abby



All clear and logical reasons to use Cross that are totally consistent with innocence.

Why did he lie about an officer being with the victim?

[GUT]

Why did he lie about an officer being with the victim?

But did he?

I've seen no evidence that he ever admitted this, or indeed was ever questioned about it.

[Ghost]

What I'm asking for is evidence for the extraordinary claim that Lechmere/Cross could have refused to give his address at the inquest.

Because the explanation suggested by Fisherman above relies on the idea that he could have done that. Otherwise, what would have been the point of giving a false surname, but the correct address?

Why did Ted Bundy tell one woman he was trying to lure that his name was Ted? I agree it's a little strange. But things happen.

[Kaz]

But did he?

I've seen no evidence that he ever admitted this, or indeed was ever questioned about it.

The programme suggests he mentioned it to officer mizen (sp), assume it was written down somewhere.

[GUT]

The programme suggests he mentioned it to officer mizen (sp), assume it was written down somewhere.

G'day Kaz

In a nutshell Mizen in some spots says he did and other reposrts just says that he was told "You are wanted down there". Cross,when asked says he didn't.

[Lechmere]

Yes Kaz it is written down in the newspaper reports of the inquest.
The anti Lechmere brigade choose to believe Lechmere over Mizen, despite Mizen being an experienced policeman with an exemplary record who was also a lifelong do-gooding religious Christian.
We have a situation where a man was found very close to a very freshly killed body with the abdominal wounds hidden. He immediately gets into a dispute with a policeman over what was said and then gives a false name.
Response if 'Ripperologists' - dream up excuses for him.

Gut
Did he know the police wouldnt follow up on him? They evidently did not and he may have hoped not but he could hardly be sure.
Pretending that the reports that do not mention a policeman wanting him with the ones that do is I would say being deliberately misleading on your part.

No one, incidentally, has claimed that Lechmere refused to give his address in court. These repetitive ignorant claims are - tiresome. The suggestion is that in the confusion he got away without reading it out.