Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[RockySullivan]

Hello Rocky,

Lech's mother ran a horse meat business from Pinchin Street (a few yards from where the torso was found), so maybe he had some knife skills.

MrB

Ah that's interesting. Lech seems rather normal which could mean he's a sociopath suggested by the lying.. Hutch comes off as more of the strange peeping tom weirdo. A strong point for Lech is Pinchin street so that means Ripper/Torso are one in this theory. How could torso dump his torsos and body parts without a car? How did the torso dump the bodies...does he really need to be a carman like lechmere or could there be otherways?

[MrBarnett]

Ah that's interesting. Lech seems rather normal which could mean he's a sociopath suggested by the lying.. Hutch comes off as more of the strange peeping tom weirdo. A strong point for Lech is Pinchin street so that means Ripper/Torso are one in this theory. How could torso dump his torsos and body parts without a car? How did the torso dump the bodies...does he really need to be a carman like lechmere or could there be otherways?

Cat's meat men typically trundled hand carts full of horse flesh around the streets, that's one possibility.

I can't speak for the Lechmere men, 'Lechmere' and 'Fisherman', as to whether their theory includes all the torsos, but I personally find it a rather intriguing coincidence that the Pinchin Street torso was found almost outside Lech's mum's front door.

If I had been a cop on the case and had known that the torso was found so close to family butchery business of the man found standing by the body of Polly Nichols, it would have made me look again at Cross/Lechmere.

I doubt there is any evidence of this , but it's probably safe to assume that Lech paid his old mum a visit now and then.

MrB

[RockySullivan]

Cat's meat men typically trundled hand carts full of horse flesh around the streets, that's one possibility.

I can't speak for the Lechmere men, 'Lechmere' and 'Fisherman', as to whether their theory includes all the torsos, but I personally find it a rather intriguing coincidence that the Pinchin Street torso was found almost outside Lech's mum's front door.

If I had been a cop on the case and had known that the torso was found so close to family butchery business of the man found standing by the body of Polly Nichols, it would have made me look again at Cross/Lechmere.

I doubt there is any evidence of this , but it's probably safe to assume that Lech paid his old mum a visit now and then.

MrB

That is a big coincidence! The man who found polly nichols and a torso at his mums door. That is pretty odd I agree with you makes me look twice at Lechmere. anything that links Lech to the other torso cases?

[RockySullivan]

What about the woman shorts that said "L.E. Fisher" in which Liz Jackson was wrapped in found in the thames? Sure it could be possible to look and see who matches initials LE Fisher! It would be interesting to see if any neighbors or associates of Lech have this name. There must be something that can come of LE Fisher....sorry this is offtopic i will move to a correct thread

[Lechmere]

This is all speculation - there is nothing here that screams suspect.
There is no evidence that he ever visited his mother nor that he ever went down Pinchcin Street after he lived there.
There is no evidence that he helped his mothers cat's meat business that his son also got involved in.
There is no evidence that he ever took the shortest route to his work that would have taken him within yards of the Tabram and Mackenzie murder scenes.
There is no way that someone who discovers a dead body and is seen close to it by someone else should ever be regarded as a suspect. After all someone had to be seen by a dead body.
There is no way that giving a name to the police, other than that which he was recorded himself as, could be regarded as suspicious. Every imaginative innocent explanation for this is more likely that any hint of guilt.
There is no way that PC Mizen's version of his conversation with Cross could be correct, but if it was Cross must have had an innocent reason for not telling Mizen the truth.
I could go on but it is so manifestly obvious that there is no reason to suspect Cross and that the police must have cleared him in 1888, so we should forget about him and regard him at best as an uninteresting witness.

[GUT]

This is all speculation - there is nothing here that screams suspect.
There is no evidence that he ever visited his mother nor that he ever went down Pinchcin Street after he lived there.
There is no evidence that he helped his mothers cat's meat business that his son also got involved in.
There is no evidence that he ever took the shortest route to his work that would have taken him within yards of the Tabram and Mackenzie murder scenes.
There is no way that someone who discovers a dead body and is seen close to it by someone else should ever be regarded as a suspect. After all someone had to be seen by a dead body.
There is no way that giving a name to the police other than that which he was recorded himself as could be regarded as suspicious Every imaginative innocent explanation is more likely that any hint of guilt.
There is no way that PC Mizen's version of his conversation with Cross could be correct, but if it was Cross must have had an innocent reason for not telling Mizen the truth.
I could go on but it is so manifestly obvious that no reason to suspect Cross and that the police must have cleared him in 1888, so we should forget about him and regard him at best as an uninteresting witness.

Most sensible post I've ever read.

[GUT]

Most sensible post I've ever read.

Especially the last sentence.

[Fisherman]

This is all speculation - there is nothing here that screams suspect.
There is no evidence that he ever visited his mother nor that he ever went down Pinchcin Street after he lived there.
There is no evidence that he helped his mothers cat's meat business that his son also got involved in.
There is no evidence that he ever took the shortest route to his work that would have taken him within yards of the Tabram and Mackenzie murder scenes.
There is no way that someone who discovers a dead body and is seen close to it by someone else should ever be regarded as a suspect. After all someone had to be seen by a dead body.
There is no way that giving a name to the police, other than that which he was recorded himself as, could be regarded as suspicious. Every imaginative innocent explanation for this is more likely that any hint of guilt.
There is no way that PC Mizen's version of his conversation with Cross could be correct, but if it was Cross must have had an innocent reason for not telling Mizen the truth.
I could go on but it is so manifestly obvious that there is no reason to suspect Cross and that the police must have cleared him in 1888, so we should forget about him and regard him at best as an uninteresting witness.

I think you may be painting yourself into a corner here, Edward.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

This is all speculation - there is nothing here that screams suspect.
There is no evidence that he ever visited his mother nor that he ever went down Pinchcin Street after he lived there.
There is no evidence that he helped his mothers cat's meat business that his son also got involved in.
There is no evidence that he ever took the shortest route to his work that would have taken him within yards of the Tabram and Mackenzie murder scenes.
There is no way that someone who discovers a dead body and is seen close to it by someone else should ever be regarded as a suspect. After all someone had to be seen by a dead body.
There is no way that giving a name to the police, other than that which he was recorded himself as, could be regarded as suspicious. Every imaginative innocent explanation for this is more likely that any hint of guilt.
There is no way that PC Mizen's version of his conversation with Cross could be correct, but if it was Cross must have had an innocent reason for not telling Mizen the truth.
I could go on but it is so manifestly obvious that there is no reason to suspect Cross and that the police must have cleared him in 1888, so we should forget about him and regard him at best as an uninteresting witness.

A strange blend of irony and fact.

[RockySullivan]

Your clearly right that Lechmere meets the qualifications for a person of interest...if Lechmere was Ripper/Torso i'm sure you can turn up more evidence that would indicate as much. Lechmere clearly needs to be looked into more before he can be labeled as absolutely positively the Ripper/Torso right? To jump the gun and claim case solved is a bit..."Edwardian" don't you think?

[Lechmere]

Ah but Hutchinson, he lived, perhaps, in the Victoria Home, so we can take it as a racing certainty that he would know all the streets within a mile radius and would have patrolled those streets in the small hours. The fact that we only know he walked down Whitechapel Road from Romford and up Commercial Street should tell us that he also must have known Berner Street. It is obvious that he can plausibly be placed in all the streets.
And after all he said he knew Kelly for three years so he must have visited her at Breezer's Hill. Must have!
I don't doubt that Hutch was proficient with a knife - wasn't everyone in those days?
He placed himself quite close to Kelly on the morning of her death? Can any other suspect he placed by himself so close to a victim? Credible suspect I mean?
We known he was interrogated by Abberline but that idiot cannot have really satisfied himself as to Hutch's bona fides.
We know he wandered the streets on the night in question. That would be the best option for a murderer anyway as the police would never stop and search someone wandering the streets after a murder and he would not have been worried about wandering the streets after committing his crimes as he knew that he would have no blood on him that would be visible if he was stopped.
It is obvious that Hutchinson was one of those serial killers who likes to insert himself in the investigation, and also go running to the press and accompany the police on their enquiries to attract attention. This is typical serial killer behaviour.
Alternatively he felt compelled to come forward as Lewis saw him loitering - even though not a single press or police report connects him to Lewis's loiterer.
And there is no way that Toppy was Hutch as Toppy was 'first' mentioned in a book that wasn't very good, and Toppy became a plumber so there is no way that he could have been a labourer in 1888, even though his father and uncle also started out as labourers and became plumbers - that is irrelevant.
And of course he had free access in and out at any time of the day to the Victoria Home where he could eat body parts in the communal kitchen unnoticed. Yum yum.
Case closed.

[GUT]

Ah but Hutchinson, he lived, perhaps, in the Victoria Home, so we can take it as a racing certainty that he would know all the streets within a mile radius and would have patrolled those streets in the small hours. The fact that we only know he walked down Whitechapel Road from Romford and up Commercial Street should tell us that he also must have known Berner Street. It is obvious that he can plausibly be placed in all the streets.
And after all he said he knew Kelly for three years so he must have visited her at Breezer's Hill. Must have!
I don't doubt that Hutch was proficient with a knife - wasn't everyone in those days?
He placed himself quite close to Kelly on the morning of her death? Can any other suspect he placed by himself so close to a victim? Credible suspect I mean?
We known he was interrogated by Abberline but that idiot cannot have really satisfied himself as to Hutch's bona fides.
We know he wandered the streets on the night in question. That would be the best option for a murderer anyway as the police would never stop and search someone wandering the streets after a murder and he would not have been worried about wandering the streets after committing his crimes as he knew that he would have no blood on him that would be visible if he was stopped.
It is obvious that Hutchinson was one of those serial killers who likes to insert himself in the investigation, and also go running to the press and accompany the police on their enquiries to attract attention. This is typical serial killer behaviour.
Alternatively he felt compelled to come forward as Lewis saw him loitering - even though not a single press or police report connects him to Lewis's loiterer.
And there is no way that Toppy was Hutch as Toppy was 'first' mentioned in a book that wasn't very good, and Toppy became a plumber so there is no way that he could have been a labourer in 1888, even though his father and uncle also started out as labourers and became plumbers - that is irrelevant.
And of course he had free access in and out at any time of the day to the Victoria Home where he could eat body parts in the communal kitchen unnoticed. Yum yum.
Case closed.

Least sensible post I've ever read.

[MrBarnett]

I haven't voted yet. A few months ago I would have put my tick against Lech without hesitation. I'd always thought of Hutch as a bit of spoofer. Whenever I heard his name an image of Max Miller came to mind.

But then I read The Bank Holiday Murders and I started to look at things from a different perspective. And the piece of grit that has turned Hutch into a pearl is the Romford connection. I can't get Romford and Crossingham out of my head. The fact that his son and future wife were attacked in their lodging house and Mary Austin was fatally wounded there (don't remember off hand if both incidents took place on the same premises, but they both took place in establishments owned by Crossingham) smacks of some kind of turf war.

And it makes me wonder whether Hutch was on look-out that night.

At the moment, of the two, Lech is still ahead in mind. But I need to do a bit more research and thinking about Crossingham et al before I would commit myself to a vote

MrB

[Fisherman]

Hello Rocky,

Lech's mother ran a horse meat business from Pinchin Street (a few yards from where the torso was found), so maybe he had some knife skills.

MrB

It was 147 Cable Street, not Pinchin Street. And we only know that she was listed as a cat´s meat woman in 1891, so she need not have been into the business before that date. Nor do we know that she actually ran it from the Cable Street dwellings.

A useful case for Lechmere as the Pinchin Street torso killer can be made. It goes like this:

The torso was probably carried to the site, unlike the rest of the dumped torsos that would have been transported to where they were found.
Equally, in the other torso cases, body parts were scattered over time, making it obvious that the killer moved over large areas.
This is not in evidence when it comes to the Pinchin Street torso, where none of the missing parts were subsequentially found.
There were marks on the skin of the torso, as if it had been carried inside a coarse sack. The police reasoned that it could not have come from far away.
147 Cable Street was a hundred yards or so away.
At the time the torso was found, Joseph Forsdike, the third husband of Lechmere´s mother, was seriously ill and dying. It can be reasoned that he was hospitalized and that his wife could have been at his side, leaving their dwellings on Cable Street empty.
Charles Lechmere had formerly lived in Pinchin Street.

Most of it is speculation, of course.

But believe me, making an equally useful bid for George Hutchinson as the Pinchin Street slayer will involve a lot more speculation and a lot less links and possibilities.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Yeah he must have been a look out.
If Hutch went to Romford it must have been to visit Crossingham as no one ever goes to Romford unless they are visiting Crossingham and it is clear these murders were put on by the lords of the lodging houses for their own entertainment (or as a turf war) and they made all the witnesses keep schtum.
Because the Ripper crimes were very similar to the usual run of brawls that turn nasty that inevitably happen in places like a late Victorian Lodging House in a poor quarter of town. Weren't they? They were not unusual in their savagery were they?