Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[MrBarnett]

I'm curious as to why Pickfords would have a depot specialising in the transportation of meat the City when the main slaughterhouses were in Islington. Perhaps Pickfords had another depot there, and Broad Street catered for the likes of Harrison and Barber in Winthrop Street

Or are we saying that carcasses arrived at Broad Street by train?

Fascinating stuff, Fish. Definitely needs some more research.

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:
Charles Lechmere seemingly delivered meat.

Seemingly, or possibly?

Certainly, if you ask Arthur Ingram.

The meat business is one associated with cutting flesh and producing blood.

Slaughtering, certainly, and butchery. But not the transporting of the meat.

I donīt know about that. Blood would have seeped out on the carters vehicle, and he may well have been required to cut meat parts. We need to delve deeper in to those specific bits in the future.

He may have employed a long, sharp knife in his line of business.

Good to see you using the word MAY this time.
But it's not very likely that the cart driver was involved in butchery.

Not butchery as such, no - but he may have dealt with meatcutting to some extent. And in Lechmereīs case, he may well have been deeply involved in the catīs meat business too. He would have lived in a world full of hunks of meat and cut-up carcasses, Mr Barnett. To me, that must carry significance.

He would have had an explanation for bloodstains on his person.

Smears, maybe. But not enough to disguise fresh blood spatter.

I think that is somewhat secondary. But I can see where this is going - we now only have a "maybe" attached to the suggestion that he could have had blood on his person, and I think that is slightly ridiculous to be honest. We are speaking of a carter that would have carried parts of animal bodies, slabs of meat and innards onto his cart. It is not a "maybe" that he would get blood on him - it is a certainty.

He had a transporting vehicle which would be ideal to transport human flesh and bodies on, should he wish to.

Which victims are you suggesting were transported by cart? And do you imagine his van boy was complicit in the murders?

Now look at you - you are now introducing a van boy as if it was an absolute certainty that there was such a person around. That is rather hard to establish, Iīd say.
If you read my former post, you will know that I said that he COULD transport bodies on the cart, but that he never did so in the Ripper murder series. The Pinchin Street torso was manually carried, and thatīs the one that has links to Lechmere.
However, if he WAS the Torso killer, meaning that the Pinchin Street torso belonged to the Torso tally, then he would have had the perfect transporting vehicle.

That's about it, so far. And thatīs not half bad, is it?

Interesting, but not earth-shattering. When you make the Islington connection, that's when I will really sit up and take notice (pet theory alert!!)

It IS as earth-shattering as it is gonna get in the Ripper discussions - it applies that whenever a suspect that could formerly not be connected to the butchery business, suddenly can be tied closely to it, then the earth WILL tremble. You know that as well as I do. Just ponder what Phil Carter said earlier - imagine that this would be revealed about Kosminski, that he was not a hairdresser but instead Charles Lechmeres van boy, doing the rounds with tons of meat on his cart!

But now it is about Lechmere and not Kosminski, so instead of saying "Wow - thatīs a major, major find and that alters the game totally - good for you!", we instead go "nothing earthshattering".

And thatīs just a bit sad. Then again, I donīt come here to get a fair judgement.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

GUT:
Sorry Fisherman

Donīt be.

Can you give me one just one piece of evidence to support this, sure Pickford's delivered meat but they also delivered a lot of other goods.

If Arthur Ingram is correct, the Pickfords depot in Broad Street more or less exclusively dealt with meat transports. Whether this holds true or not, I canīt say. But he is a transport historian and he has researched Pickfords extensively, so I think it will be hard to find a better source.

Thatīs as good evidence as I can give you. But on the whole, I think it is a tad strange to ask me to give you evidence - I already had, hadnīt I?

Or is there something I've missed that proves that Lechmere delivered meat.

No, you have not missed anything as such, since I had not before told you the full extent of what Ingram states. Now you know, though.

And now that you DO know, if you accept what Ingram says, that Pickfords of the Broad Street depot more or less dealt with meat transports only - what does it mean to your perception of the suggestion that Lechmere could have been the killer?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Charles Lechmere seemingly delivered meat.

Seemingly, or possibly?

The meat business is one associated with cutting flesh and producing blood.

Slaughtering, certainly, and butchery. But not the transporting of the meat.

He may have employed a long, sharp knife in his line of business.

Good to see you using the word MAY this time.
But it's not very likely that the cart driver was involved in butchery.

He would have had an explanation for bloodstains on his person.

Smears, maybe. But not enough to disguise fresh blood spatter.

He had a transporting vehicle which would be ideal to transport human flesh and bodies on, should he wish to.

Which victims are you suggesting were transported by cart? And do you imagine his van boy was complicit in the murders?

That's about it, so far. And thatīs not half bad, is it?

Interesting, but not earth-shattering. When you make the Islington connection, that's when I will really sit up and take notice (pet theory alert!!)

[GUT]

Sorry Fisherman

Charles Lechmere seemingly delivered meat

Can you give me one just one piece of evidence to support this, sure Pickford's delivered meat but they also delivered a lot of other goods.

Or is there something I've missed that proves that Lechmere delivered meat.

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

So I've possibly wasted Ģ10 on a book about removal vans.

I donīt actually know, as I have not read the book myself. But I think youīll get your moneyīs worth, Mr Barnett.

It's not (good) enough for you to suggest that the work of a cart driver would involve butchery. Do you think a slaughterman would hand over a consignment of meat to a delivery man and expect him to carry out a few last minute bits of trimming on the way to Smithfield or wherever?

No, I donīt. But I have no trouble seeing a cartman delivering meat halving chunks of it before he delivers to a local butchery. It would save him carrying the other half in both directions unneccesarily.

I would also like to add that the question whether the killer had a butcherīs knowledge or not must be an open one. Maybe he did, maybe he didnīt. But Lechmere could well have developed a fscination with cutting into flesh on account of his job, thatīs what I am saying.
No matter how we cut and slice it ( ) , it must be said that this is a major breakthrough for the Lechmere theory. Letīs not forget that!

And neither is it (good) enough for you to twist my words to make them seem ridiculous. Butchered meat contains very little blood. So the STAINING would be different, not the blood itself. Compared to a slaughterman, a butcher would have little staining on his clothes. And compared to a butcher, a meat delivery man would have even less.

I am not twisting your words. At least I have no such intention. But if Lechmere delivered meat on his cart, then we should realize that the floor of the cart would come in contact with thousands and thousands of cut-up carcasses over the years. Eventually, the floor would soak up so much blood that it would be coloured all over by it.
If you were to put a torso - perhaps not freshly cut, as was the case with the Pinchin Street torso - on it, there is not a chance in hell that anybody would be able to tell whatever blood came from it from all of the other bloodstains on that floor.
It would be the ideal transporting vehicle for a torso killer for example. I think there can be no denying that. If we look at the Ripper murders only, then he did not transport any of the victims on the cart anyway.

I would rein in any initial excitement about Lech being covered in gore and carrying a long bloody knife if I were you.

Well, if you donīt want me to misrepresent you, then please do me the same favour! I am saying that we can see how he would be able to explain bloodstains on his clothing, and I am saying that I do not exclude that he would have had reason to carry a butcherīs knife in his occupation, although this needs further substantiation.

On the whole, though, I think we are looking at something that much strengthens Lechmereeīs candidature. I would not wanīt to have it said that I am drawing too much on it as such, so therefore I do not like this picture I supposedly brought up (I didnīt, of course - it was you).

Charles Lechmere seemingly delivered meat.
The meat business is one associated with cutting flesh and producing blood.
He may have employed a long, sharp knife in his line of business.
He would have had an explanation for bloodstains on his person.
He had a transporting vehicle which would be ideal to transport human flesh and bodies on, should he wish to.

Thatīs about it, so far.

And thatīs not half bad, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Nothin compares to U

Fisherman

Obviously Five Believers

(Slightly out of date as we now have 8!!)

[MrBarnett]

Wow. The first person after Phil Carter arrives to see significance in the meat carrying business!

Of course, a lot of ifīs and buutīs are added, and it is said that we could tell the difference between butchery blood and serial killer victim blood (it would be VERY different), but nevertheless - it is some little acknowledgement, anyhow.

As for the book, I donīt know if the information is in there. My information derives from private conversations with Arthur Ingram.

And thatīs all I am ready to divulge at this moment.

It should be enough.

The best,
Fisherman

So I've possibly wasted Ģ10 on a book about removal vans.

It's not (good) enough for you to suggest that the work of a cart driver would involve butchery. Do you think a slaughterman would hand over a consignment of meat to a delivery man and expect him to carry out a few last minute bits of trimming on the way to Smithfield or wherever?

And neither is it (good) enough for you to twist my words to make them seem ridiculous. Butchered meat contains very little blood. So the STAINING would be different, not the blood itself. Compared to a slaughterman, a butcher would have little staining on his clothes. And compared to a butcher, a meat delivery man would have even less.

I would rein in any initial excitement about Lech being covered in gore and carrying a long bloody knife if I were you.

MrB

[Fisherman]

G'day again Fisherman

You keep talking about him using Lechmere with authorities, do we have any other record of him talking to the police?

If you have answered this elsewhere I am sorry I don't remember seeing it.

You see to me there is a good reason to use Cross with the police, the fact that his step father was one, and may well be known at the station. A nervous person may well try to take advantage of a family connection, and that could also be a pointer towards guilt.

Yes, once again we have a logical possibility and a freak one.

I would say that if he was nervous, he should avoid lying about his true identity to the police, considering that he found the body alone. It could - and should - mean very severe questioning and a lot of trouble if found out. At the end of it all, it could be the scaffold for him, and thatīs not a place you want to be if you are of a nervous disposition.

And no, there are no other police contacts on record. So if we wish to grasp at straws, hereīs one!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

What would be a good soundtrack for the battle between Lechmere and Hutchinson?

Nothin compares to U

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Morning, Fish .

This revelation about the carrying of meat is very interesting. I have sent for a copy of The Story of Pickfords to check it out. Do you know, did he take meat from the slaughterhouses to butchers and meat markets?

One point I have to make, though, is that as a mere carrier of the meat, there would be no reason for Lech to be cutting it and so no need for a butcher's knife.

And the nature of any blood staining would be very different from that incurred by a slaughterman (or a serial killer).

MrB

Wow. The first person after Phil Carter arrives to see significance in the meat carrying business!

Of course, a lot of ifīs and butīs are added, and it is said that we could tell the difference between butchery blood and serial killer victim blood (it would be VERY different...?), but nevertheless - it is some little acknowledgement, anyhow.

As for the book, I donīt know if the information is in there. My information derives from private conversations with Arthur Ingram. You can find information on the net about how the railway revolutionized the meat transporting options (in 1849, a million cattle were transported on train in to London, whereas they were driven on hoof a few decades before), and you can see that there were three contractors managing the meat transports inside London. Pickfords was one of them.

And thatīs all I am ready to divulge at this moment.

It should be enough.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

GUT:

Why isn't it the better guess, it is totally logical.

It is not the better guess because we have not one single case of evidence to him having used the name Cross at any occasion other than in relation to the murder investigation. But we DO have more than a hundred signatures saying Lechmere. Plus these signatures were made in combination with authority contacts, and the police is just such an authority contact.

It is all very easy - we know that he called himself Lechmere, we donīt know that he called himself Cross with the one exception.

But as you say totally possible.

Yes, it is possible. It will always be. But much weight needs to attach to which is the better choice.
There will always be other explanations as long as no proof can be found. Even nif you hold a smoking gun in yoour han and the man in fron of you falls to the gound with a hole in his chest, it COULD BE that you missed and anoyther bullet was fired from behind you. We can ALWAYS find alternative solutions when no absolute proof is at hand.

But what should we go with in such cases?

Now if Mizen has to be reminded that there was even another man there, what does that say about his recall?

Nothing at all. He had no problems remembering Paul. He was sure that he was there, and he was sure that he looked like a carman too. He just didnīt mention him when he described what had happened since he played no role at all in the conversation.
And that is what we shouldfocus on -Paul never participated.
So Lechmere lies through his teeth when he says he did.

Since he forgot that Paul was even there, yep.

But he didnīt forget it, did he? He didnīt speak about Paul until asked, but that is not the same as not remembering him If he had not remebered him, he would have said "No" when the coroner said "there was another man in company with Lechmere, wasnīt there?"

Plus, Gut, and now you need to think - how did the coroner know that there was another man present? Who had told him about that?

I would strongly suggest that there can only have been one source: Mizen. So he had told the police about Paul ne had said what role he played, and then he just spoke of Lechmere at the inquest, knowing quite well that Paul was of no significance to what perspired.

We really, really need to get a grip on all of this. I think you may be dribbling yourself out of the game if you donīt take into account all the variables we can tell must have been there. Mizen did not forget about Paul at all, right?

So did Cross.

Come on. So did Peter Kürten.
Are you suggesting that Mizen could have been a serial killer? We have him on record, he stayed lived on the grounds of the St Anderws congregation where he helped out with the church work, he was a former gardener when he joined the police, he returned to his fathers farm and tended to it with great success, he went on to become a church warden, he sang in the church choir. Sure, it could point the wrong way, but then thereīs that thing with outside, freak possibilities again ...!

About Lechmere, there are strong pointers to him being Jack the Ripper. Thatīs not a quiet life.

Again if he can't even remember that Paul was there until he is reminded it certainly seems that he may have been capable of being confused.

Again, he DID remember it. And his servíce record tells us that he was not easily confused. But please, Gut - letīs not try and perpetuate more myths here. Letīs not try and create a story where Mizen had forgotten about Paul, He very obviously and clearly had not.

Who knows, but I would expect he would make haste for Bucks Row.

And he didnīt! Guess why!

As for whether he would let the carmen go, there are good answers and freak, outside possibilitites too. As longs as we realize that, we will be fine.

I don't understand how his failure to correct Neil proves a thing, but maybe I've missed something.

If Mizen knew that the carmen - and NOT Neil - were the ones that found the body, then why would he not inform his superiors about it as soon as Neil witnessed on inquest day one and did not mention the carmen at all?

Make the assumption that Lechmere never said anything at all about another PC in Buckīs Row. That was Lechmereīs own version of the truth. He said that he only told Mizen that there was a woman in Buckīs Row who was probably dead or perhaps drunk, right?

Then Mizen reads the article from the inquest īs first day. And there, Neil says that he came into Buckīs Row and found a woman lying there. He describes it all as if HE was the one who found Nichols.

Then Mizen should go "Hello! Neil was not the man who found Nichols, the carmen I spoke to found her first!"

Then what should he do, having this knowledge about a top priority murder case?
Keep quiet about it, or tell his superiors?

Then Neil goes on to say, in an interview that the papers all have on the 3:rd, that the talk of two men showing him to the body is wrong - he found the body by himself!
Shouldnīt that ring warning bells with Mizen? Shouldnīt he realize that the men spoken of were the carmen? Should he not go straight to his superiors and put the cards on the table (if he had not already done it two days earlier)?

He knew that Neil was wrong. He knew that the carmen had found the body. IF, that is, he had not been lied to.

Take it one step further. If Lechmere had not spoken of any PC in Buckīs Row, what would be Mizenīs reaction when he ran into Neil up at Brownīs stable yard? I would think that he would be surprised to see a colleague of his in place already, and that he would say "Oh, youīve found the woman too; I was told by two guys about her."

At wich remove in time Neil would say: "WHAT??!!! And you LET THEM GO???"

The only credible scenario in which Mizen would not be baffled by Neilīs presence outside Browns Stable Yard, and in which he would not inform his superiors about Neil being wrong, is one where he was told by Lechmere that there was another PC in Buckīs Row.
If he was fed that information, he would NOT be baffled by Neilīs presence at the murder spot, and he would NOT think that Neil had it wrong at the inquest, and he would NOT protest about the paper interview since he know that Neil was correct - he had not been directed to the body by two men.

It is a shrewd, clever, devious lie, but we can easily untangle it by looking at what Mizen did. His reactions tell the story.

Are you with me now? Can you see the scam?

If he's lied to or not why didn't he hot foot it to Bucks Row.

Because a colleague of his already had the situation in hand, and the errand was not serious. In all probability, she was just a drunkenbolt, who needed an escort to the police station to sober up.
That was the picture Lechmere fed Mizen.

I've never heard of a policeman in my life who is told he's wanted at X by a fellow officer because there's been a body found who doesn't go at all haste.

That would depend on the nature of the errand. Note that Mizen never asked Lechmere "Is it serious?" or anything like that. He apparently was told the news in a tone and manner that informed him that it was routine and not serious. At the inquest, he said that the carman never said anything about any murder or suicide.

There was never any seriousness in the message, no "Quickly, officer, you must run to Buckīs Row!"
There was a toned down message about a routine errand, in all probability speaking of a drunkard.

Well I am glad to hear you admit that.

Admit? What do you mean admit? When you admit, you have first denied, and I have never denied it. I have never said I can prove my case. I am saying that it is a very strong and very good case, and the probable solution to the Ripper case. I stand by that.

Well so some think.

No, itīs not a question of some thinking it. The much more probable thing is that Lechmere lied to Mizen. The much more credible thing is that was because he was the killer. Thatīs beyond questioning in both cases.
Alternative suggestions MAY apply, but they have much less going for them.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Morning, Fish .

This revelation about the carrying of meat is very interesting. I have sent for a copy of The Story of Pickfords to check it out. Do you know, did he take meat from the slaughterhouses to butchers and meat markets?

One point I have to make, though, is that as a mere carrier of the meat, there would be no reason for Lech to be cutting it and so no need for a butcher's knife.

And the nature of any blood staining would be very different from that incurred by a slaughterman (or a serial killer).

MrB

[GUT]

What would be a good soundtrack for the battle between Lechmere and Hutchinson?

G'day Varqm


How about the Keystone Cops tune, because the only way I can make sense of either of them is if I accept that the Keystone Cops investigated.

[GUT]

G'day again Fisherman

You keep talking about him using Lechmere with authorities, do we have any other record of him talking to the police?

If you have answered this elsewhere I am sorry I don't remember seeing it.

You see to me there is a good reason to use Cross with the police, the fact that his step father was one, and may well be known at the station. A nervous person may well try to take advantage of a family connection, and that could also be a pointer towards guilt.