Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Hatchett]

Hi Fish,

What you are talking about is not evidence at all!

Lechemere gave a wrong name. So what?

There has to be someone to find a body. Considering that all the victims were found by someone does that mean that are five, six, seven, eight killers?

I accept your right to have a suspect, but you have to aceept that I or anyone can disagree with you suspect ... because at the end of the day at present there is no evidence against anyone.

But I would say that people who were interviewed with the Police have to be the least likely.

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

Hi Fish,

Dont forget that man was interviewed by the Police and allowed to go.

What makes you think I forgot it? Of course he was questioned - but not close enough to find out his identity. That tells the story, once we are ready to listen. A great many arenīt.

Also I said nothing about the manner of killing. But a bird does not defecate in its own nest. Nearby maybe, but not in its nest.

How would the police know it was somebodyīs nest?

Hutch too was interviewed by the police.

But tell me ... what actual evidence is there against either of them?

I would be pleased to know.

Read post 113 on this thread. It contains most - but not all! - evidence against Lechmere.

Hutch? You can dump him, he wasnīt the guy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Fisherman, in that last post to me, you hit the nail on the end: There is inconclusive data available when it comes to Crossmere as a suspect.

So you have finally seen the light? You have finally grown to realize that I am not - as you usually claim - saying that it is a fact that he was the killer. It took some time, but it was worth the wait!

We don't know whether he had any kind of criminal past, we don't know if he why would've stopped killing, if he was the Ripper.

Marvellous. And so, so true!

Therefore, in absence of his evidence, you should be able to see why it's absurd for someone like yourself to jump to the conclusion that he WAS our man, and that the police "probably would've charged him" had been taken in.

Ooops - now it went awry again. I have not jumped to the conclusion that he was the man - I have slowly reached the position that he was very probably our man.
And that is something that is very much possible to do on circumstantial evidence only. Thousands of killers have been convicted on circumstantial evidence, and it applies in their cases too that the data has been inconclusive. But it has nevertheless been damning enough to justify both a trial and a conviction.

So you're essentially taking those gaps and performing huge leaps of faith, which contradicts this assertion of yours that you're only interested in the cold, hard truth.

No, it does not. Creating a scenario with the use of a number of points that bolster it is not in any shape or form to distance yourself from the truth. As long as you clearly state that parts of a scenario is conjecture - and it WILL be, in any theory of the Rippers name - you can be onehundred per cent a seeker of the truth.

The policemen that hunted down the Green River killer did not have conclusive evidence until very late in the process. Are you saying that their suggested scenario for the murders was not created in search of the truth? Then you need to think again. Or once.

Compare and contrast him to someone like Jacob Levy.

Yes, Iīd love to do that!

Another local in the area - My guess is that there were more.

had the necessary skill/knowledge - to do WHAT? Perform surgery? There is zero evidence that the Ripper had any knowledge at all about butchery.

was mentally unhinged - he was a total nutter, and he would not have been able to kill these victims undetected. Furthermore, most serialists are NOT mentally unhinged, but instead fit to plea. Levy was not.

was prone to wandering around at night - Then it MUST have been Issenschmid. Or Lechmere, who walked the streets EVERY night, walking to his job.

was connected to one of the witnesses - how is that damning?

was sent to asylum around the time the murders stopped - they were FULL, the asylums. Thatīs because people were sent there in heaps.

Now THAT'S someone with legitimate cause to be considered an exceptional suspect. And I'm not arguing that Levy categorically WAS the Ripper, but if it wasn't Joe Bloggs, then Levy is as good as it gets. Crossmere? Not even close.

Go to a policeman, if you can find one. Preferably a murder squad man. List the damning evidence against Jacob Levy.

Then tell him that ANOTHER man was found alone with one of the murder victims, and that we cannot be sure how long time he had spent with theat victim.

Then ask him which guy he would go for.

Thatīs all I am asking, Harry - do that, and see what happens. What we have on Levy is about as damning as having red cheeks and earlobes.

You need to get a pair too.

Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi Fish,

Dont forget that man was interviewed by the Police and allowed to go.

Also I said nothing about the manner of killing. But a bird does not defecate in its own nest. Nearby maybe, but not in its nest.

Hutch too was interviewed by the police.

But tell me ... what actual evidence is there against either of them?

I would be pleased to know.

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

Hi all,

Dont you think it is highly unlikely that either of these are the killer? They were both investigated by the Police at the time.

... to an extent where the police failed to get the real name of the carman, yes. Bravo!

Also for a killer that had reached such prominance as a National terror to have killed on his route to work is really very unlikely.

Why? How would the police have an inkling about what was going on? And how on earth does his status as a national terror affect how he could have killed...? Do national terrors only kill on their spare time?

There is nothing against Hutch at all.

Sorry, but there is a little something (to think that I should be the one to claim that...!)

I really think that if we are serious in trying to find a reasonable suspect we have to look elsewhere.

Yeah, you are probably right. Why regard a man that was found alone by a freshly killed victim, and who concealed his identity and conned the police as a reasonable suspect? That would be outright dumb, wouldnīt it?

Fisherman