Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[MrBarnett]

MrBarnett:

If the papers describe him as Charles Allen Cross, Pickfords Carman, of 22, Doveton Street, then who is fooled ? His family, employers and neighbours would know it's him. The cops and the gangsters would know where to find him.

Only they didn´t. The first name varied, and The Star alone got his address, and that means that he did not give it himself (or he gave it in a manner that could not be made out).
So he apparently hid his address. Any idea why?

I did once suggest that perhaps some of the ladies of the night might recognise his surname, but that was given short shrift by team L. So I am genuinely at a loss to understand what the point of it all could have been.

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.

The working place he gave, since it was a large working place with hundreds of men. It would not have him revealed by those who knew him.

If you, Mr Barnett, were in the same predicament - if you wanted to accomodate the police and keep the rest of the world out of the know - can you think of any better way to go about it than what Lechmere did?

Once more - what is your problem here?

The best,
Fisherman

What does the fact that some newspapers got his names wrong tell you ?

It tells me that he didn't speak very clearly. Ditto the lack of an address. And the report of him getting to Bucks Row via Bath Street.

Perhaps he mumbled because he feared there might be someone in the court who knew him as Lechmere.

See, I've turned on a sixpence again. And I'm back where I started, believing he gave all the information required to identify him.

(This is so much better than Shawlgate, don't you think?)

MrB

[Fisherman]

That, sir, is a totally unwarranted calumny.

I'll have you know I am a happily married man. And the incident with the choirboy was a pure fiction dreamt up by the gutter press.

MrB (husband of MrsB)

One of the guys in Brockeback Mountain was also "a happily married man"... but I know that you´re not one to sing to the choir(boys).

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: What does the fact that some newspapers got his names wrong tell you ?

It tells me that he didn't speak very clearly.

Then we are two. I think he murmured in a low voice. And perhaps for a reason.

Ditto the lack of an address.

No - that´s very different. Look at how all papers took it upon them to get the addresses in print, no matter how tortured the interpretation. If he HAD named an address, all papers would have had a go at it. So he didn´t give any address.
If he murmured it so incomprehensibly as to render all papers but the Star unwilling to even have a go, then how could the Star get it completely correct?

It goes without saying that the Star reporter did not get that address from Lechmeres lips.

And the report of him getting to Bucks Row via Bath Street.

Yup - "Parson" street would have been a garbled Bath Street. Agreed!

Perhaps he mumbled because he feared there might be someone in the court who knew him as Lechmere.

Nope. Cross came across, so to speak.

See, I've turned on a sixpence again. And I'm back where I started, believing he gave all the information required to identify him.

That´s another of the 360 degree turns, you mean? Anyways, no, leaving out the address and swopping the name does not provide good means for an identification. In fact, it provides NO means for it at all. If I said that I was a Harold Gogglesworth and ommitted to give my address, only adding that I worked as a journalist, would you be able to make me out? If I avoided starting to drool and murmuring "Lech did it, I swear"?

(This is so much better than Shawlgate, don't you think?)

The source is much, much better. The suspect is much, much better. The level of understanding is much, much ... no, let´s not go there.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

I´m in.

Fisherman

Don't fight it, Fish.

[Abby Normal]

It took him past the site of the Nichols and Chapman murders. The same is true of any man who lived in Bethnal Green but worked in and around Spitalfields Market. Charles Allen Lechmere is not unique in this respect.

When people find someone collapsed in the street, what do they do? They go and make a cursory inspection and then flag down the next person who comes along. They draw attention to themselves. They make sure that someone else is also aware. They report the discovery. Just as Charles Allen Lechmere did. Had Lechmere sent Paul to search for a policeman while he waited with the body I would have considered his actions a great deal more suspicious - but he didn't.

Hutchinson, if he loitered as he said he did, was waiting for Astrakhan Man to leave. This, I think, was either in the hope of replacing him in Kelly's bed or (more likely in my view) planning to relieve Astrakhan Man of the valuables he had so carefully noted. Then we have the issue of what Hutchinson could or could not have seen in the prevailing conditions. The majority view on Casebook seems to be that he could not have seen the detail he claims to have noted. Possibly so, but it is opinion formulated on an assumption about what was possible under the Commercial Street lighting conditions. Abberline had worked the area for upwards of 20 years and knew, from first-hand experience, what was and was not possible. When Hutchinson gave his account Abberline formed the opinion that it was true. That is documented fact and therefore a matter of historical record. An assumption is made that Abberline subsequently had second thoughts. That is not documented fact; it is opinion. It may be a correct opinion but there is no proof of the matter.

We know that Hutchinson was skint. He couldn't (or wouldn't) lend Kelly sixpence. If he wants to have sex with Kelly and he hasn't got the money, how might he get hold of it it at that time of the morning? By mugging prosperous Astrakhan Man (who is never going to report the event to the police because he knows that Hutchinson knows what he has been up to).

In short:-

Was Lechmere a killer? Possibly - but more probably a witness.

Was Hutchinson a killer? Possibly - but more probably a would-be robber/blackmailer, who took several days to decide that it was sensible to admit to being a blagger rather than keep quiet and be suspected of something far worse.

I haven't voted in this poll. Either is possible but neither is likely.

Hi Bridewell
Eventhough I think that Hutch is one of the best suspects we have (admittedly-one of the least weak of a weak lot) I would be remiss if I did not say that I think that this is a very sensible post and very possible.
Good post.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of the enigma that is Hutchinson.
I just can't accept that he saw Kelly and Astrakhan Man in the early hours of the 9th.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think that Kelly left her room after her assignation with the blotchy faced man.

It is a good piece of lateral thinking to look critically at Coss/Lechmere, but without more evidence it is difficult to accept him as a anything more than some poor guy who stumbled across the corpse of Nichols.

[Scott Nelson]

I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of the enigma that is Hutchinson.

That's probably why Ben Holm isn't participating on this thread.

[Fisherman]

barnflatwyngarde: I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of the enigma that is Hutchinson.
I just can't accept that he saw Kelly and Astrakhan Man in the early hours of the 9th.

You don´t have to - the better guess is that it happened the night before, on the 8:th.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think that Kelly left her room after her assignation with the blotchy faced man.

It is a good piece of lateral thinking to look critically at Coss/Lechmere, but without more evidence it is difficult to accept him as a anything more than some poor guy who stumbled across the corpse of Nichols.

On the contrary - there is evidence enough to make for a strong case against him.

-Paul didn´t hear or see him, although he supposedly walked thirty or forty yards in front of Paul for a long stretch, including underneath the powerful lamps outside the brewery in Bath Street.

-The clothes weer pulled down over Nichols abdominal wounds - in no other evisceration case did this happen. Instead, it can be argued that the other ones were left on display.

-When Paul asked him to help to prop Nichols up, he refused, stating that he would not touch her, something he had already done.

-Lechmere said he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, so he should not have been anywhere near Buck´s Row at 3.45.

-He avoided giving his true name to the police.

-He apparently lied to PC Mizen on the murder night, claiming there was another PC waiting in Buck´s Row. The lie was shaped as the perfect tool to take him past the police.

-He presented himself at the inquest so as to remain impossible to identify to those who knew him.

-He was found standing alone by a freshly killed victim.

-The timings tell us that Llewellyn would not have been in Buck´s Row any earlier than 4.10, meaning that he placed the TOD at 3.40 or later.

-Lechmere´s closest routes to work would have taken him right by four of the murder places.

-He went to work at the approximate times when all these four killings could have been committed.

-He had a connection to Berner Street, and a reason to pass it on Saturday nights.

-From Berner Street, Mitre Square was situated where his old working trek would have taken him, starting out at Berner Street.

-The Goulston Street grafitto and the apron piece was placed where he would have passed, either if he went home directly after Mitre Square or if he went to Broad Street first to deposit the organs.

-If he did go to Broad Street for a short time before heading home, it would explain why the apron was not in place in Goulston Street at 2.20.

Any police force worth it´s salt would haul him in immediately if they had known or realized these things. And they would most probably have charged him with murder.

There are plenty of reasons not to absolve him of having killed Nichols. There are plenty of reasons to make the accusation, and every chance that it is a just one.

Just saying.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Has it been established where the entrance to Lechmere's workplace was?

MrB

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Has it been established where the entrance to Lechmere's workplace was?

MrB

Yes, I think so. But not all will agree on it - surprise, surprise!

Why do you ask?

Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Yes, I think so. But not all will agree on it - surprise, surprise!

Why do you ask?

Fisherman

Just curious . Looking at the map and wondering which route he would have taken from Hanbury Street.

Mr. B

[Fisherman]

Just curious . Looking at the map and wondering which route he would have taken from Hanbury Street.

Mr. B

U-huh. Well, I suggest a look at the thread Suspects: General suspect discussion: So would he have run?


The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

U-huh. Well, I suggest a look at the thread Suspects: General suspect discussion: So would he have run?


The best,
Fisherman

Thanks, Fish.

[GUT]

Fish,

Has it been established where the entrance to Lechmere's workplace was?

MrB

Fish thinks so, but if he is wrong it really hurts his hypothesis.

[MrBarnett]

Fish thinks so, but if he is wrong it really hurts his hypothesis.

G'day Gut,

Yes, I remember the discussion now. A lot of sound and fury over nothing if you ask me. It's not like the alternative routes are miles different in terms of distance. To my mind, familiarity, simplicity and safety would be just as important considerations as a few yards here or there.

From Hanbury Street, for instance, he would most likely have continued straight along Brushfield Street, avoiding the more complicated and slightly longer (according to my map) 'short cut' along the most dangerous street in London. Unless he was heading for Skinner Street when he would have gone via Lamb St. and Spital Sq..

I really am puzzled as to why we have to have Lech actually walking down Dorset Street each morning to support his candidacy as Kelly's killer. Isn't it just as likely that he bumped into her in Commercial Street somewhere?


MrB