Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

A comparison between Lechmere and Hutch will entail these matters:

It is suggestedthat Hutchinson used an alias, and was actually somebody else. A signature comparison goes a very long way to tell us that the witness was George Topping Hutchinson.

It is established that Lechmere used an alias, and was actually somebody else.

It is not known which routes Hutchinson used when moving in the East End.

It is established that Lechmere used routes that took him straight through the killing fields on a daily basis.

It is suggested that Hutchinson stood outside a victims lodgings on the night that victim died, although a good case can be presented that he had gotten the days wrong. He would have been around ten yards from the victim, a wall separating them.

It is established that Lechmere was alone with one of the murder victims. He would have been feet only from the victim, no wall inbetween them.

It is suggested that Hutchinson lied to the police.

It is established that a policeman said at the inquest that Lechmere told him something that Lechmere himself denied having said.

If people are having trouble realizing which of these men is the much better bid for the killers role, based on the evidence, then so be it. That´s just Ripperology.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

A couple of observations re the respective 'routes':

Apart from the night of Nichol's murder, we have no evidence of the route used by Lechmere. And it is just possible that his route that night, via Hanbury Street, was influenced by a desire to stick close to Paul.

Hutchinson's digs in the Victoria Home were pretty much at the epicentre of the 'killing fields'.

Honours pretty much even I would say.

MrB

[Westbourne Wink]

Lechmere by a country mile.

In terms of his route(s) to work - we know where he lived and we know where he worked and we know which way he was going on the night Nichols was killed, so I'd say we have a pretty good idea what routes he took.

There are several pretty much equidistant ways he could taken to Broad Street.

I think it is more than fair to say he would have used them.

Hi Fish,

A couple of observations re the respective 'routes':

Apart from the night of Nichol's murder, we have no evidence of the route used by Lechmere. And it is just possible that his route that night, via Hanbury Street, was influenced by a desire to stick close to Paul.

Hutchinson's digs in the Victoria Home were pretty much at the epicentre of the 'killing fields'.

Honours pretty much even I would say.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Hi WW,

Fish's point is that Lechmere's route(s) to work makes him a better candidate than Hutch. I don't see it personally. If, for instance, Lech always went Bucks Row/Hanbury Street (the only route for which we have any evidence) then that would mean he was considerably further away from Osborne Street/George Yard than Hutch in the environs of the Victoria Home.

Not a lot in it really. But on balance I would say that an assumption that Hutch was familiar with the most likely meeting points (more relevant than killing point) eg Commercial Street, Whitechapel Road is a safer bet than saying we know for certain what Lechmere's work routes were.

The thing that most concerns me about the certainty some people do have about the routes is that if Lech is guilty, then we cannot even trust his statement about his route on the morning of Nichols. If he did kill her, what are the chances he found her in relatively quiet Bucks Row? Very unlikely I would have thought. It's much more likely that he picked her up in the Whitechapel Road. And that could have been his regular route to work. It probably had been for a number of years prior to his move to Doveton Street.

MrB

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

Fish's point is that Lechmere's route(s) to work makes him a better candidate than Hutch. I don't see it personally.

Fish´s point is that we KNOW that Lechmere worked in Broad Street and lived in Doveton Street, and we KNOW that he passed through Buck´s Row to get to job, and we KNOW that from there the Hanbury Street route and the Old Montague route offered more or less equally long routes that were the quickest ways to reach his job - passing right through the killing fields.

Fish´s point is furthermore that we DON´T know what routes Hutchinson would have used.

It even applies that Fish is of the opinion that the Victoria Home was NOT Hutchinsons regular joint, as per his interview in the Daily News.

It therefore applies that Lechmere is by far and away not only the best bid, but also the only bid since we cannot place Hutchinson anywhere.

If, for instance, Lech always went Bucks Row/Hanbury Street (the only route for which we have any evidence) then that would mean he was considerably further away from Osborne Street/George Yard than Hutch in the environs of the Victoria Home.

But Hutchinson did not normally stay in the Victoria Home, Mr Barnett. Didn´t you read Jon´s posts on the topic some months ago?

The thing that most concerns me about the certainty some people do have about the routes is that if Lech is guilty, then we cannot even trust his statement about his route on the morning of Nichols. If he did kill her, what are the chances he found her in relatively quiet Bucks Row? Very unlikely I would have thought. It's much more likely that he picked her up in the Whitechapel Road. And that could have been his regular route to work. It probably had been for a number of years prior to his move to Doveton Street.

The Whitechapel Road trek was significantly longer than Hanbury Street and Old Montague, and we know that he knew about the Hanbury Street route (for some reason, I don´t think that Old Montague was a hidden gem to him either).

As for Nichols, please observe that there was a lot of time inbetween Hollands sighting of her and 3.40. She may well have taken a client to Bucks Row before she was found by Lechmere - and that could have happened in Bucks Row if she was already there after having served another client.

All the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

If Lechmere is innocent, then we can be reasonably sure that his route to work passed through Bucks Row. If not, all we can say is that Bucks Row is the location either he or Nichols chose as somewhere dark and quiet to conduct their business. Where they met is unknown.

Beyond Bucks Row we do not know which route(s) he took. He may only have gone via Hanbury Street the one time to keep company with Paul. Either as an innocent man shaken by the finding of Nichols and feeling safe in the other man's company, or as a guilty man keeping a close eye on someone who may have witnessed his crime.

Wherever Hutchinson dossed, it is clear that he was no stranger to the area. Nichols aside, there is no evidence that Lechmere was any closer to any of the murder locations than Hutch on the relevant nights.

I know you have painted yourself into a corner by claiming that all the murders took place within 30 yards of Lechmere's route to work, but there is no evidence of which routes he took other than on the morning of Nichols. And as shown in your last post it requires him to have bumped into his victims almost at the spot where he killed them rather than on larger thoroughfares where they were much more likely to have been plying their trade.

All possible, of course. But no more so than Hutchinson being in the same general area at the same time.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Whose actions are more suspicious?

Hutch lurking outside Millers Court in the wee small hours and providing the police with an improbably detailed description of a man seen in her company.

Or:

Lech giving the alternative name Cross and there being some confusion over the exchange with Mizen.

( I deliberately didn't use the word alias as I think that applies to a completely false name used to disguise one's identity. Whereas Lechmere used the name of his stepfather, a name which was on record as being his.)


MrB

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Fish,

If Lechmere is innocent, then we can be reasonably sure that his route to work passed through Bucks Row.

We can be reasonably sure of that anyway. There were no other useful options. Whitechapel Road was the next best bid, and that would mean a time-consuming detour.

If not, all we can say is that Bucks Row is the location either he or Nichols chose as somewhere dark and quiet to conduct their business. Where they met is unknown.

Yes. And that means that we cannot be certain that they did not meet in Bucks Row.
There is every chance that Nichols was the one that chose the street. If so, she may have chosen the exact same street many, many times before. Holland met with her shortly after 2 AM, and she was killed very close in time to 3.40. Therefore, we may have a picture where she had served other client/s in Buck´s Row before meeting the killer. So there is a very real possibility that she was on Buck´s Row as the killer arrived there.

Beyond Bucks Row we do not know which route(s) he took. He may only have gone via Hanbury Street the one time to keep company with Paul. Either as an innocent man shaken by the finding of Nichols and feeling safe in the other man's company, or as a guilty man keeping a close eye on someone who may have witnessed his crime.

Yes, this is very true - we do not know what routes he used. We can only guess, and when we guess, we should apply logic. Old Montague Street offered the shortest route and it was situated very close to where Lechmere had lived for decades. It is therefore the most logical bid. After that, Hanbury Street was almost as quick, so that is the second bid.
We know that he employed Hanbury Street on the mirder morning. Is it reasonable to state that he would have used Old Montague Street too? I think so.

Wherever Hutchinson dossed, it is clear that he was no stranger to the area. Nichols aside, there is no evidence that Lechmere was any closer to any of the murder locations than Hutch on the relevant nights.

No, but there IS evidence that Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street were the most useful road choices for him, and there IS evidence that he grew up around Berner Street, and there IS evidence that his mother lived past Berner Street, on 147 Cable Street, with his daughter.
That is called circumstantial evidence, and it not only exists in Lechmere´s case - it nails the murder spots.
In Hutchinsons case, there is nothing to suggest that he would use either street, is there?

It is really very, very, very simple - Lechmere is a soooo much better bid in this context. And when we add the timings, guess what happens?

There is no way this can be denied or contested. It is a non-issue.

I know you have painted yourself into a corner by claiming that all the murders took place within 30 yards of Lechmere's route to work, but there is no evidence of which routes he took other than on the morning of Nichols. And as shown in your last post it requires him to have bumped into his victims almost at the spot where he killed them rather than on larger thoroughfares where they were much more likely to have been plying their trade.

Painted myself into a corner...? How would that work? What I am saying - and what the evidence tells us - is that the victims all were found on or very close to the treks that were the most logical choices to take him to work.

Would you think Lechmere a better suspect if the victims had been found on Trafalgar Square, on Rotten Row, on Ratcliffe Highway and on Harley Street...?

Can we be for real?

All possible, of course. But no more so than Hutchinson being in the same general area at the same time.

Much more so, since we HAVE the connection in one case and not in the other. "The general area" is not good enough. Hutch could have been many, many miles away from the murder sites, but Lechmere would have been close to them on an everyday basis. Inevitably.

We also need to know where Hutchinson normally dossed before we can say that he was in the vicinity.

How this can be a matter of contention is a riddle to me. You are welcome to explain it, though. Maybe you are suggesting that the police should NOT look for people who passed through a killing zone on a regular basis, at around the hours when the victims died? Maybe you are suggesting another approach?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Whose actions are more suspicious?

Hutch lurking outside Millers Court in the wee small hours and providing the police with an improbably detailed description of a man seen in her company.

Or:

Lech giving the alternative name Cross and there being some confusion over the exchange with Mizen.

( I deliberately didn't use the word alias as I think that applies to a completely false name used to disguise one's identity. Whereas Lechmere used the name of his stepfather, a name which was on record as being his.)


MrB

Why not alter your wording:

Hutchinson, standing around for some time outside a place where a victim was found, and being able to give a very detailed description of a man he saw.

Or Lechmere, hiding his true name from the police, and with great certainty lying to pass by the police on the murder night.

Can you see how this changes the game, Mr Barnett? Only by changing "lurking" to "standing" in Hutchinson´s case, for example, did I manage to shift the guilt away from him to a significant extent.

If we stay away from such things, we will present much clearer pictures of what happened.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

signs

Hello Christer.

"She may well have taken a client to Bucks Row before she was found by Lechmere - and that could have happened in Bucks Row if she was already there after having served another client."

Of course, she was examined and there were no signs indicating such.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer.

"She may well have taken a client to Bucks Row before she was found by Lechmere - and that could have happened in Bucks Row if she was already there after having served another client."

Of course, she was examined and there were no signs indicating such.

Cheers.
LC

Such? There are many "suches" in this context, Lynn.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Why not alter your wording:

Hutchinson, standing around for some time outside a place where a victim was found, and being able to give a very detailed description of a man he claims he saw.

Or Lechmere, hiding his true name from the police, and possibly lying to pass by the police on the murder night.

Can you see how this changes the game, Mr Barnett? Only by changing "lurking" to "standing" in Hutchinson´s case, for example, did I manage to shift the guilt away from him to a significant extent.

If we stay away from such things, we will present much clearer pictures of what happened.

The best,
Fisherman

Now totally fair to both men and in line with the evidence. And clearer than ever that there is something about both accounts that gives pause for thought, but nothing that necessarily screams 'suspect!'

[Fisherman]

Now totally fair to both men and in line with the evidence. And clearer than ever that there is something about both accounts that gives pause for thought, but nothing that necessarily screams 'suspect!'

In line with the evidence? Maybe in line with the evidence as you know it, Mr Barnett.
The evidence as I know it comes very close to clinching that he lied to Mizen about the other PC. And that DOES scream "suspect"!

And of course, there is much more relating to Lechmere that has not been presented here - some of it new evidence to you, no doubt.

What Hutchinson has going for him is the unwillingness to accept his testimony. But even if he did add a few gadgets on his own, or if he simply invented A man, there is nothing involved in it that pronounces "suspect" other than in the softest of whispers.

Comparing Hutchinson to Lechmere is bonkers.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Let me ask you a question: If I could convince you that Lechmere lied about the second PC - would you accept Lechmere as the probable Ripper in such a case? Or would you suggest that he did it to get to work sooner...?

[Lechmere]

I'm somewhat reluctant to get involved in these 'versus' type discussions...

Hutchinson - the son of someone called George Hutchinson claimed that the witness was his father. This is strongly resisted by those who push Hutchinson as the Ripper, but I would suggest that unless there is a very good reason to disbelieve this claim, then there is no sensible reason to claim the family were lying.
When this George Hutchinson ('Toppy') is investigated in the records he closely fits the one interrogated by Abberline.
I'm not so certain over where Hutchinson lived during this period, but the Victoria Home certainly had a curfew at 1.00 am-ish which meant it was a particularly unsuitable lodging for a night stalker (again this is denied - by some - advocates of Hutchinson).
Then we know that Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline.
Hutchinson went around with policemen afterwards looking for the A-man, he gave a press interview - he was very much embroiled in the case for a period, when public, police and media awareness was at its most heightened.
Yet he was not identified as the man seen by Lewis loitering.

As for Lechmere
Cross wasn't 'a name which was on record as being his'. It was never 'his'. His stepfather entered it as his name in the 1861 census that is all that can be said.
Is there anything about him that screams suspect?
Well he was found very close to a dead body by another person, before he had raised the alarm. That usually screams suspect. Indeed although one may believe that the police wudda shudda cudda investigate him and clear him, we have absolutely no evidence to back up the suggestion that they did and accordingly, when revisiting the case it is sensible to go on what we know. The one thing about this that we do know is that it looks like the police did not discover his true name so, in turn it seems likely that they did not investigate him.
When someone who is found by a dead body then gives a name to the authorities other than that by which he always records himself, then I would suggest that it would be usual to regard that act with suspicion.
When someone then meets a policeman and the alternative versions of their conversation at totally at odds, over he discovery of a dead person, then I would suggest that is grounds for suspicion and indeed 'screams' suspect.
There are of course many other issues - such as the geography of where the bodies were found (including Stride and the Pinchin Street Torso) and the apron location, and the timings on the morning of 31st August and his attire at the inquest and Nichols's clothing covering her abdominal wounds - to name just a few - that add to the scream of 'suspect'.
It is also the case that Nichols was the only twice discovered body, and the version that PC Neil discovered the body remained in place until 3rd September, when Lechmere belatedly came forward - after Paul's newspaper account was published that put him, alone, standing where the body was.
In my opinion.

[Jon Guy]

I'm not so certain over where Hutchinson lived during this period, but the Victoria Home certainly had a curfew at 1.00 am-ish which meant it was a particularly unsuitable lodging for a night stalker (again this is denied - by some - advocates of Hutchinson).

Why would it be a unsuitable lodging for a night stalker?
The murder times sit well with someone without lodgings for the night.