Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

Surely, that should be opinions rather than theories
Which is a tad different.

I have a theory that was just your opinion.

Fisherman

[Sally]

No Hutchinsonians? Well you're here now Sally.

Was here, Ed. My moment of amusement has passed; as fleeting as a vote for Crossmere

[Lechmere]

I have a theory about your opinions.
But sometimes, quite differently, I have an opinion about your theory. It all depends what side of the bed I get out of, matron.

[MrBarnett]

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?

Ed,

I’m wary of turning this into a Bank Holiday Murders thread, but I would like to answer your comments.

I agree wholeheartedly that some of the WM do not make sense in terms of a turf war. Prior to reading The BHM I was pretty much a vanilla C5 man, with a (very) slight doubt about Stride and at a push prepared to consider Tabram and Mackenzie. This was one of the problems I had with Lech when I discovered your ambitions for him were far wider in terms of body count.

Then after my first reading of The BHM that certainty dissolved and I found myself prepared to consider almost anything. Subsequent musings and a second reading of the BHM brought me almost back to my starting point. I see the C5 as a distinct cluster, though I now tend to think of them as C+1+1. The ripping is the obvious distinctive feature. Stabbing, slashing, insertion of blunt objects make sense in terms of a gang/powerbase struggle. Ripping and ferreting about for organs is way OTT.

The earlier crimes, however, from Horsnell to Tabram and subsequently Austin, coupled with the attack on Margaret Sullivan I feel belong together, possibly as part of something like a turf war. Certainly by 1900 Crossingham had had enough and had retired to leafy Romford.

And why a+1+1? Well I’m open to the suggestion of the murderer being disturbed before he had fulfilled his ambitions re Stride. And I also feel that it may be no accident that Kelly was killed on McCarthy’s doorstep, so to speak. And that brings us back to Hutch, the man who came back from Romford and stood outside Crossingham’s keeping an eye on one of McCarthy’s ‘lodgers’.

Having said all this, I admit to be the perennial floating voter and by this time next week my opinion may have turned another 360. (There’s a new book about Druitt coming out isn’t there?)

Gary.

[MrBarnett]

Was here, Ed. My moment of amusement has passed; as fleeting as a vote for Crossmere

Sally,

Before you go, who's Stephen Maywood? Is he in any way connected to Mr Hunnible the builder?

Gary

[Fisherman]

Having said all this, I admit to be the perennial floating voter and by this time next week my opinion may have turned another 360.
Gary.

That will bring you back to the exact same opinions, Mr Barnett.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

You expressed the fear that you were letting your imagination run away with you. Or was that another example of the infamous team Lechmere irony?

BTW I do like the way you guys constantly hone your act.

I make the mistake of thinking that Mrs F was living in Pinchin Street at the time the torso was dumped and you quite rightly correct me by pointing out it was Cable Street. Ed then steps briskly in to point out how close Cable Street is to Pinchin Street. Then again you tell us in one post that we have no evidence that she was in the cats meat business before 1891 only to come back shortly afterwards to point out that we have no evidence to point out she wasn't. It's almost seamless.

BTW, I have now voted.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

That will bring you back to the exact same opinions, Mr Barnett.

The best,
Fisherman

Ah, but which opinion? I have had so many.

MrB

[Jon Guy]

I have a theory that was just your opinion.

Indeed, my theory is that they are opinions.

[Jon Guy]

I have a theory about your opinions.
But sometimes, quite differently, I have an opinion about your theory. It all depends what side of the bed I get out of, matron.

I get out at the end of my bed, Ed.

p.s.
I`d like to say I do this so I don`t wake the young ladies sleeping next to me, but really it`s just because I`m weird.

[Lechmere]

I thought maybe it was to avoid stepping in your cell mate's slopping out bucket.

[Harry D]

Hutchinson.

He knew the victim, he was loitering near the murder scene, had questionable motives, delayed coming forward to the police, and spun an elaborate suspect description.

In truth, they're both weak.

[Bridewell]

Then you have to come up with an explanation as to why the police never found out what his true name was.

Either that or consider the possibility that the police knew exactly who he was but didn't leave an extant record of the fact for the benefit of ripperologists. This notion of a 'false' name is just one interpretation. The man gave the surname of his former stepfather but his correct address. I don't see the point of that if he was seeking to avoid identification. Why would it matter what name he gave? Was he likely to be suspected if he gave Lechmere, but not if he gave Cross? Why would that be? Had the police ever suspected him they would have located him at his home address in any event; had they never done so the giving of a 'false' name would have been pointless. It doesn't work for me.

My surmise (which is as valid as any other - no more, no less) is something along these lines:

Lechmere makes a statement, taken down by a police officer. Officer says,
"Hang on a minute. I know you. You're Cross's lad! What's your first name, son?"
"Charles"
"Middle name?"
"Allen."
"Of course it is. Charles Allen Cross. I never forget a face! What have you got to tell me then, about this murder?"

Pure hypothesis of course, but then so is the theory that he lied about his identity with nefarious intent. I can't recall anyone I ever met in my police career who gave a false name but a correct address. Plenty who gave a false name and address, but none who lied about one but not the other. Because if you give the police your correct address they will find you should they wish to do so.

If there's a pub in heaven, Fish, I'll buy you a pint if it turns out that Lechmere was the killer - as long as you stand me one if he wasn't.

[Michael W Richards]

Hutchinson.

He knew the victim, he was loitering near the murder scene, had questionable motives, delayed coming forward to the police, and spun an elaborate suspect description.

In truth, they're both weak.

As murder suspects, Id agree Harry. Suspicious people or actions don't equate naturally to a person who kills women and cuts them up.

But you are spot on about Hutch....hard to imagine that he would behave in the manner he did if what he says was true.

Cheers

[Bridewell]

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

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.