Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Varqm]

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

[GUT]

No, Gut, that is not how it works. We have always kept the door open for it being the other way.

We have always - ALWAYS - said that it is the amount of evidence that brings Lechmere down. We have always conceded that every one of all the points against him CAN have alternative, innocent explanations. But we have said that there is a limit, there is a point when the donkeyīs back breaks, where we must admit that it would be silly to go looking for yet another excuse, no matter how far-fetched.

If you go back and look you will find us saying that yes, he COULD have been called Cross by his friends, BUT IT IS NOT THE BETTER GUESS.

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

You will find posts where we say that yes, Mizen could have gotten it wrong, BUT IT IS NOT THE MORE CREDIBLE EXPLANATION.

But as you say totally possible.

So donīt claim that we are not accepting or looking at other explanations than the sinister ones - we always do, but they are not always good explanations. And sometimes they are out and out silly.

Take Mizen, for example. You say that he could be lying, that he could be confused, that he could be incompetent.

Lechmere says that he and Paul spoke to Mizen. If he was the killer, he needed to take focus away from his having fed Mizen his lies with Paul out of earshot. He stood to gain from giving the inquest the picture of both him and Paul speaking to Mizen.

Mizen says that one man spoke to him. The coroner has to ask him if there was not another man around too before he remembers to mention Paul. One man spoke to Mizen, thatīs what he himself says.

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

One of these men is not telling it as it was. Who would that man be? Who had a reason to lie?

Answer me this:

Would Mizen lie about it, and if so: why?

Would he forget how many men it was that spoke to him? Is that credible?

Since he forgot that Paul was even there, yep.

As for his incompetence, he was given a very good grade after his service, the next best grade possible. He was a very competent policeman, Gut; it is on record.

But of course, you may say that he may have had a bad evening. Yes, he may - but it is never and can never be the best bid. It is an outside possibility, a freak shot. Again.

He lived a quiet life,

So did Cross.

Mizen, in a religious community. He was a church choir singer, and when he retired he went back home to care for his fathers farm. He did this admirably, and he became some sort of church warden in the village.
For all we know, he was an efficient, good, hard-working man who was given a very good service record as a copper when he took his leave.

Is that a man who would get all confused and get it all wrong? It could be, but is that the better guess? No, it is - once again - the outside, freak possibility that will always be there. He could have been drunk on the night in question, he could have suffered from migraine etcetera, etcetera. Outside possibilities, freak chances.

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.

He only spoke very shortly to the carman. He is very clear about what was said. He does not waver, he does not say "I could not make out what he said".

The carman said that he was needed in Bucks Row, where another PC awaited him, and that a woman was lying in the street there.

If the carman had said "Hey, officer, me and my pal found this woman lying in the street down in Buckīs Row, and I think she may be dead or dying", then would Mizen let the men go without even asking for their names?

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

No, he would not. It was the lie about the other PC that took Lechmere past Mizen, otherwise he would not have been allowed to pass. And Mizens failure to come forward and correct Neil afterwards bears witness to this - it all fitted, but it only fitted if he had been lied to!

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

Once again, there ARE other possibilities, but none of them are even remotely as likely to be true as is the Mizen scam. If Mizen was not lied to, then he reacted very oddly, not hurrying to Bucks Row and not telling his superiors that Neil had it wrong.

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

If he WAS lied to, then he acted very logically, taking it easy down to Buckīs Row, knowing that a colleague had the situation in hand, and not complaining about Neil telling it as Mizen thought it was.

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.

The game is up. It really is. We canīt prove it beyond doubt

,

Well I am glad to hear you admit that.

but we CAN prove that it is the best guess by far.

Well so some think

The best,
Fisherman

Same to you my friend.

[Fisherman]

Rosella: So, because Cross/Lechmere MAY have lied to Mizen that there was a policeman near Nichols' body, and he lived in the neighbourhood of the Ripper killings, he is inevitably a serial killer? Sorry, don't buy it.

Not really, no. Itīs to begin with not a question of an outside possibility that Lechmere lied - all the evidence very clearly tells us that he DID lie to the PC. He MAY not have, but that is just a very far-fetched, freak shot in the dark.

So, since we can see that the by far best option is that he lied about the other PC, we have only three alternatives as to WHY he did so:

1. Because he was the killer and wanted to get past the police, or

2. Because he was late for work, and decided that conning the PC was the best strategy to not miss out on too much working time. And he was willing to get hauled in the next working day by Mizen and to be raked over the coals, something that would inevitably make him loose out on his working time anyway, and that could potentially get him in deep, deep trouble if a crime lay behind the womanīs presence in Bucks Row.

3. He simply liked to lie to PC:s.

Take your own pick, Rosella. Which is the likelier alternative?

By the way false names, nicknames were a dime a dozen in the East End at that time. There is nothing terribly sinister about it. Cross was the name of Lechmere's policeman stepfather. May be a sign of a black sense of humour on Lechmere's part when he gave that name!

What did I tell you about freak possibilities...? We have more than a hundred examples of his contacts with different authorities. He ALWAYS goes as Lechmere on these occasions.

The police is an authority. Conclusion?

After that, do the math. If he would habitually call himself Cross once every hundred of his contacts with the aouthorities, then how big was the chance that this would be THE opportunity? Right: One in a hundred.

And how big a chance was there from the outset that he would play such a game? Oh, I forgot - he could have had a sense of black humour!

Well, hereīs MY sense of humour:
He did not tell Mizen his name.
When he lied about it, he was talking to an inquest.
If it was an expression of black humour, then it was an expression that could see him hang for it, after further investigations led on by his lie.

And how funny would that be?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer,

Something has occurred to me.
Replace Cross/Lechmere and this new information about a meat cart, delivery man etc with the name Kosminski...or even Druitt or Tumblety if you wish, but for now, Kosminski.

Now do you ever get the feeling that this meat carrying, knife carrying Kosminski would get the same poorly regarded attention as Cross/Lechmere does?

I venture to add my answer... not on your Nelly! BECAUSE they are the "suspects" named by policemen, albeit none of them on an official police document, THEIR weak theories are kept alive, like a wild pig on a spit. Meat? Knives? Wow! The promoters of all of them would be rewriting books, doing tv documentaries and films galore based on such connecting information.

It is to yours and Edwards credit imho that you stand by a viable suspect theory (because it is viable) and wait for some sort of "official" recognition by some person somewhere that will get the stamp of "suspect" approval for a person currently called just a witness.

Ever notice George Hutchinson was afforded the dual lable without much problem?

Its almost as if you arent allowed to gatecrash the party, isnt it?

I voted for Cross/Lechmere. I think Hutchinson had other fish to fry. IF that was his real name, of course.....

best regards from across the fjord :-)


Phil

All very true, Phil. The hours tick by, I have pointed out that the job Lechmere did was one where he drove meat to butcheries and meat markets, and I have pointed out that he had reason to have bloodstained clothes and to carry a long-bladed, sharp butcherīs knife along with him.

Just like you say, in any other case this revelation would empty the champagne stocks all over town, but in this case all there is, is silence.

Hello out there! The case could be getting cracked, piece by piece, right under your noses! Charles Lechmere was seemingly deeply involved in the butchery business, he would arguably spend his days looking at people carving away at carcasses, cutting limbs away, opening up bellies, taking out entrails, and he may well have participated to some extent. He could reasonably have driven human bodies on his cart, and nobody would ask about the blood afterwards.

But why would anybody care - itīs just Lechmere, the kindly family man, we are speaking of. Who am I trying to fool?

And he would have run anyway.

Thanks for seeing right through it, Phil!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

G'day Lechmere

But doesn't the reverse also apply:


The possibility that Mizen may have NOT been telling the truth CANNOT be conceded. Maybe deliberately, maybe out of confusion maybe for some other reason, maybe he was just incompetent.

The possibility that Lechmere WAS known as Cross can NEVER be agreed to.

The fact that Cross gave all his other right details must be downplayed as a part of his scheme.

The fact that the police would almost certainly have made inquiries must be ignored.

No, Gut, that is not how it works. We have always kept the door open for it being the other way.

We have always - ALWAYS - said that it is the amount of evidence that brings Lechmere down. We have always conceded that every one of all the points against him CAN have alternative, innocent explanations. But we have said that there is a limit, there is a point when the donkeyīs back breaks, where we must admit that it would be silly to go looking for yet another excuse, no matter how far-fetched.

If you go back and look you will find us saying that yes, he COULD have been called Cross by his friends, BUT IT IS NOT THE BETTER GUESS.

You will find posts where we say that yes, Mizen could have gotten it wrong, BUT IT IS NOT THE MORE CREDIBLE EXPLANATION.

So donīt claim that we are not accepting or looking at other explanations than the sinister ones - we always do, but they are not always good explanations. And sometimes they are out and out silly.

Take Mizen, for example. You say that he could be lying, that he could be confused, that he could be incompetent.

Lechmere says that he and Paul spoke to Mizen. If he was the killer, he needed to take focus away from his having fed Mizen his lies with Paul out of earshot. He stood to gain from giving the inquest the picture of both him and Paul speaking to Mizen.

Mizen says that one man spoke to him. The coroner has to ask him if there was not another man around too before he remembers to mention Paul. One man spoke to Mizen, thatīs what he himself says.

One of these men is not telling it as it was. Who would that man be? Who had a reason to lie?

Answer me this:

Would Mizen lie about it, and if so: why?

Would he forget how many men it was that spoke to him? Is that credible?

As for his incompetence, he was given a very good grade after his service, the next best grade possible. He was a very competent policeman, Gut; it is on record.

But of course, you may say that he may have had a bad evening. Yes, he may - but it is never and can never be the best bid. It is an outside possibility, a freak shot. Again.

He lived a quiet life, Mizen, in a religious community. He was a church choir singer, and when he retired he went back home to care for his fathers farm. He did this admirably, and he became some sort of church warden in the village.
For all we know, he was an efficient, good, hard-working man who was given a very good service record as a copper when he took his leave.

Is that a man who would get all confused and get it all wrong? It could be, but is that the better guess? No, it is - once again - the outside, freak possibility that will always be there. He could have been drunk on the night in question, he could have suffered from migraine etcetera, etcetera. Outside possibilities, freak chances.

He only spoke very shortly to the carman. He is very clear about what was said. He does not waver, he does not say "I could not make out what he said".

The carman said that he was needed in Bucks Row, where another PC awaited him, and that a woman was lying in the street there.

If the carman had said "Hey, officer, me and my pal found this woman lying in the street down in Buckīs Row, and I think she may be dead or dying", then would Mizen let the men go without even asking for their names?

No, he would not. It was the lie about the other PC that took Lechmere past Mizen, otherwise he would not have been allowed to pass. And Mizens failure to come forward and correct Neil afterwards bears witness to this - it all fitted, but it only fitted if he had been lied to!

Once again, there ARE other possibilities, but none of them are even remotely as likely to be true as is the Mizen scam. If Mizen was not lied to, then he reacted very oddly, not hurrying to Bucks Row and not telling his superiors that Neil had it wrong.

If he WAS lied to, then he acted very logically, taking it easy down to Buckīs Row, knowing that a colleague had the situation in hand, and not complaining about Neil telling it as Mizen thought it was.

The game is up. It really is. We canīt prove it beyond doubt, but we CAN prove that it is the best guess by far.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rosella]

So, because Cross/Lechmere MAY have lied to Mizen that there was a policeman near Nichols' body, and he lived in the neighbourhood of the Ripper killings, he is inevitably a serial killer? Sorry, don't buy it.

By the way false names, nicknames were a dime a dozen in the East End at that time. There is nothing terribly sinister about it. Cross was the name of Lechmere's policeman stepfather. May be a sign of a black sense of humour on Lechmere's part when he gave that name!

[GUT]

Phil
Well when it was found that one of Kosminski's relatives lived further down from Berner Street it was seized upon as a major revelation connecting him to the Stride killing...

More than anything it is amusing to see the almost desperate endeavours to bestow the most incredible innocent explanations for various alternative guilty ones.
The possibility that Mizen may have been telling the truth CANNOT be conceded. The possibility that Lechmere was never known as Cross can NEVER be agreed to.
And so on.
Those are the lines that cannot be jumped!
And suspect sections can be crerated for all manner of outlandish suspects, some of whom have barely raised a thread - but never for Lechmere as that would bring down the edifice.

G'day Lechmere

But doesn't the reverse also apply:


The possibility that Mizen may have NOT been telling the truth CANNOT be conceded. Maybe deliberately, maybe out of confusion maybe for some other reason, maybe he was just incompetent.

The possibility that Lechmere WAS known as Cross can NEVER be agreed to.

The fact that Cross gave all his other right details must be downplayed as a part of his scheme.

The fact that the police would almost certainly have made inquiries must be ignored.

[Lechmere]

Phil
Well when it was found that one of Kosminski's relatives lived further down from Berner Street it was seized upon as a major revelation connecting him to the Stride killing...

More than anything it is amusing to see the almost desperate endeavours to bestow the most incredible innocent explanations for various alternative guilty ones.
The possibility that Mizen may have been telling the truth CANNOT be conceded. The possibility that Lechmere was never known as Cross can NEVER be agreed to.
And so on.
Those are the lines that cannot be jumped!
And suspect sections can be crerated for all manner of outlandish suspects, some of whom have barely raised a thread - but never for Lechmere as that would bring down the edifice.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Christer,

Something has occurred to me.
Replace Cross/Lechmere and this new information about a meat cart, delivery man etc with the name Kosminski...or even Druitt or Tumblety if you wish, but for now, Kosminski.

Now do you ever get the feeling that this meat carrying, knife carrying Kosminski would get the same poorly regarded attention as Cross/Lechmere does?

I venture to add my answer... not on your Nelly! BECAUSE they are the "suspects" named by policemen, albeit none of them on an official police document, THEIR weak theories are kept alive, like a wild pig on a spit. Meat? Knives? Wow! The promoters of all of them would be rewriting books, doing tv documentaries and films galore based on such connecting information.

It is to yours and Edwards credit imho that you stand by a viable suspect theory (because it is viable) and wait for some sort of "official" recognition by some person somewhere that will get the stamp of "suspect" approval for a person currently called just a witness.

Ever notice George Hutchinson was afforded the dual lable without much problem?

Its almost as if you arent allowed to gatecrash the party, isnt it?

I voted for Cross/Lechmere. I think Hutchinson had other fish to fry. IF that was his real name, of course.....

best regards from across the fjord :-)


Phil

[Fisherman]

ditch the pissiness fish please. I am actually empathetic to your case, if you haven't figured that out by now.

And yes, I think you and lech have made enough clear and concise arguments that Lech should have a suspect listing here. To be completely frank, I never even considered him a viable suspect-I didn't even think about it- before you and lech brought it up.

And I think he does compare a lot to hutch actually-they actually have a lot of similarities!

And yes-thank you- I will contemplate more the "mizen scam" and the cats meat business. I find them both rather intriguing actually.

Iīm not after you specifically, Abby, Iīm sorry if I gave that impression - and I know that you are sympathetic to our case. But I find it strange that you will go out of your way to find alternative explanations, when there is a perfectly logical and reasonable version that should take precedence! And that tallies with the rest of the story!

Now, suddenly Mizen misremembering things and construing in retrospect a belief that the carman must have told him about PC Neil is the suggestion...?! And this is something Mizen supposedly conjures up because he sees that there is a PC in place?

But how credible is it? If Mizen was just told that there was a woman lying on her back in Buckīs Row, then why would he react to Neils presence by going: Geez, another PC - surely that carman must have told me about him!

Why on Gods green earth would he do that?

If somebody tells you that there is a dog with two heads in the adjacent street, and you scuttle off to look at the beast - would you, if there was a firefighter in place when you arrived - automatically go "Oh, a firefighter - the guy who spoke of the dog must have mentioned him too"?

There is absolutely zero reason to think that this was so. Yet you dub it "a very possible scenario". Why? How?

Itīs anything but a very possible scenario, Abby. At best, it is a freak possibility.

If Mizen was just told about the woman, then he would have been surprised by seeing another PC in place, and he would make the totally logical assumption that the PC had arrived after the carmen left.

If it had been a newspaper boy - do you still think that Mizen would have gone "Ah, the carman must have told me that there was a newspaper boy here"?

If it was a preacher, a dock labourer, a Tahitian warrior - would it be "very possible" that Mizen banked on the carman having told him that these persons would be in place?

Just how credible is that? Really?

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Iīm afraid this is grasping at straws, Abby. We have it all on record, and Mizens ensuing actions are very indicative about what happened.

When we are down to suggesting "But what if he misheard something or misinterpreted it?", then we are really desperate.

The safest bet by far is that Lechmere lied to Mizen.

After that, there is a miniscule chance that Mizen misheard.

The safest bet is that if Lechmere lied, then he is also the killer.

After that, there is a miniscule chance that he lied to get quicker to job - and simultaneously took the risk to get himself in very much trouble for it.

And to think, this man is presented as a witness (!) on Casebook! Ripperology is truly the Land Behind the Mirror.

And on Wiki, it is said that he has been mooted as a suspect in the Nichols case. As if he had not been mooted for anything else for three years now!

Iīm off for now, and I will let you digest the Mizen scam and the meat delivery business.

Iīm sure neither will make any difference - it can NOT have been Lechmere. People do NOT kill en route to work. Family men are family men, and not serial killers. Every once in a while, such a man may be desperatley unlucky in terms of having a pile of evidence the size of the Everest pointing against him, but not to worry! There will always be the Casebook knights to defend him.

And he does not compare in any way to the excellent suspect George Hutchinson.

Plus he would have run. Of course.

The best,
Fisherman

ditch the pissiness fish please. I am actually empathetic to your case, if you haven't figured that out by now.

And yes, I think you and lech have made enough clear and concise arguments that Lech should have a suspect listing here. To be completely frank, I never even considered him a viable suspect-I didn't even think about it- before you and lech brought it up.

And I think he does compare a lot to hutch actually-they actually have a lot of similarities!

And yes-thank you- I will contemplate more the "mizen scam" and the cats meat business. I find them both rather intriguing actually.

[Abby Normal]

Did he immediately misremember and so carried on knocking up?
Had ge misremembered by the time he reached Neil?

No he (may have)misremembered much later, probably a day or so, but definitely by the inquest.

I see what your getting at though. Why would he keep knocking up? Because he did not at that time think it was that serious-the carmen were not sure of the seriousness of the matter-so why would the person they told? He probably just thought it was another passed out drunk.

[Scott Nelson]

But I can assure you Herr General...

Klink, you fool!!

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
I think you left out a very possible scenario.

Mizen misremembered what lech told him, because when he got to the body neil was already there. In my mind a simple mistake.

And that's why he doesn't make a big stink about it-because he realized he could have misrembered.

Iīm afraid this is grasping at straws, Abby. We have it all on record, and Mizens ensuing actions are very indicative about what happened.

When we are down to suggesting "But what if he misheard something or misinterpreted it?", then we are really desperate.

The safest bet by far is that Lechmere lied to Mizen.

After that, there is a miniscule chance that Mizen misheard.

The safest bet is that if Lechmere lied, then he is also the killer.

After that, there is a miniscule chance that he lied to get quicker to job - and simultaneously took the risk to get himself in very much trouble for it.

And to think, this man is presented as a witness (!) on Casebook! Ripperology is truly the Land Behind the Mirror.

And on Wiki, it is said that he has been mooted as a suspect in the Nichols case. As if he had not been mooted for anything else for three years now!

Iīm off for now, and I will let you digest the Mizen scam and the meat delivery business.

Iīm sure neither will make any difference - it can NOT have been Lechmere. People do NOT kill en route to work. Family men are family men, and not serial killers. Every once in a while, such a man may be desperatley unlucky in terms of having a pile of evidence the size of the Everest pointing against him, but not to worry! There will always be the Casebook knights to defend him.

And he does not compare in any way to the excellent suspect George Hutchinson.

Plus he would have run. Of course.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry D: What do you? There's no evidence that Lechmere had the necessary knowledge for the mutilations, therefore why should anyone of us jump to the conclusion that he did?

You have no idea what knowledge it took. Are you placing yourself knowledgewise over the doctors?
Thomas Bond - who was there and who saw the handiwork of the Ripper - said: In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion be does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

Who are you to throw yourself forward as the better judge? Only to speak of ME as "jumping to conclusions"...?

Are you a doctor? Are you a butcher? Did you see the bodies in 1888?

But fine, if you want Lechmere connected to the meat business, Iīll give you Lechmere connected to the meat business.

Meet Arthur Ingram! Mr Ingram is a transport historian who has written "The story of Pickfords". And he says that the Pickfords Broad Street depot dealt mainly with meat. The carmen knit to the depot delivered meat on a daily basis to Smithfield Market and a large number of butchers throughout the East end.

So not only would Charles Lechmere have been tied very closely to the meat business - he would also have had a very good reason to have bloodstains on his clothes, and an equally good reason to carry a sharp, longbladed knife.

George Bagster Phillips believed the killer possessed anatomical skill? To cleanly eviscerate Chapman within ten minutes, in those conditions, was indubitably the mark of a skilled hand. Not some carman fumbling in the dark. :P

Phillips was the only doctor who went that far - the rest did NOT agree. Please look at what Bond said once more. We cannot cherrypick our sources to fit our respective bills. The jury is out on the question of anatomical skills, and you need to accept that.
Besided, why would "some carman" fumble? Why would it be physically impossible for him to have a safe and shure hand - not least if he was dealing with meat on an everyday basis as per Ingram? Plus we donīt know if head been cutting away at the Torso victims for ten years plus when he killed Nichols - he COULD have. If so, why would we think him a fumbling carman? He could have been an accomplished killer, used to cutting up human carcasses and with an everyday contact with the butchery business.

Then Richard Chase never existed, then Son of Sam never existed.

Chase never existed as a silent killer who left no traces behind. He could not have carried out the Ripper murders and he could not have disappeared without a trace each time. Paranoid schizophrenics dont do that.

Berkowitz lied about hearing voices. He hoped to con the judge into believing that he was a paranoid schizophrenic, if I am not misremembering things.

The best,
Fisherman