Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Abby Normal]

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 donīt 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 didnīt 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 Buckīs 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 Buckīs 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 Buckīs Row any earlier than 4.10, meaning that he placed the TOD at 3.40 or later.

-Lechmereīs 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 itīs 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

Good stuff Fish
Have to admit there is lots of circumstantial evidence.

The main flag for me with Lech is the missing time. He said he was late to work. You cant know you are late for something unless you know what time it is when you leave. wheres the missing time? what was he doing for that extra time? This is what I would have grilled him on if I was the police.

Still voted for Hutch though of course. But you probably knew that. : )
Hutch has three HUGE red flags IMHO and lech has lots of little yellow flags.
I just don't see this type of serial killer killing on his way to work. Now if was ever discovered he was actually off the day of the murders-well then...

[barnflatwyngarde]

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 donīt 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 didnīt 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 Buckīs 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 Buckīs 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 Buckīs Row any earlier than 4.10, meaning that he placed the TOD at 3.40 or later.

-Lechmereīs 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 itīs 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

Fisherman,
Wow, this is a fairly robust refutation of my admittedly rather offhand dismissal of Cross/Lechmere.

I am pretty new to the boards and it is clear that cursory dismissals of suspects (like my post re Cross/Lechmere) are set up to be shot down (and rightly so).

The circumstantial evidence you list has real heft, simply because there is so much of it.

My favoured suspect is Blotchy Face who was seen with Kelly, but I will enjoy going back and looking at Cross/Lechmere again.

Thanks for the great post.

[Lechmere]

Abby
Briefly - what are the three red flags

[Harry D]

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

Balderdash. And you weren't doing too bad before that.

[Abby Normal]

Abby
Briefly - what are the three red flags

The usual ones:

1.The stalking behavior of following her and then waiting/watching out side her place

2. waiting until the inquest is over, to come forward

3. Near impossible too detailed description of a "suspect".

But the main one is the stalking behavior. When I was new to ripperworld, before I had formed any hard ideas on suspects, when I read about this behavior with Hutch, and that it was probably corroborated by sarah Lewis, I thought-hmmmm interesting.

Here is some dude who says he knows her, spoke to her, followed her and then waited/watched for her for 3/4 of an hour in the middle of the night- a cold and rainy night. And then of course has no alibi for the rest of the night. That alone should raise your eyebrows.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Wow, this is a fairly robust refutation of my admittedly rather offhand dismissal of Cross/Lechmere.

I am pretty new to the boards and it is clear that cursory dismissals of suspects (like my post re Cross/Lechmere) are set up to be shot down (and rightly so).

The circumstantial evidence you list has real heft, simply because there is so much of it.

My favoured suspect is Blotchy Face who was seen with Kelly, but I will enjoy going back and looking at Cross/Lechmere again.

Thanks for the great post.

You are welcome, barnflatwyngarde. Believe it or not, I left out a few points ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: The usual ones:

1.The stalking behavior of following her and then waiting/watching out side her place

But it would seem that he did NOT stalk the other victims, as far as we can tell - Eddowes perhaps being the best example since she had just been let out of the coop. At any rate, there is no evidence at all of the killer stalking the other victims. If he was a proven stalker, it would have been another matter.
Plus there is a very clear chance that he was not even there on the night ...

2. waiting until the inquest is over, to come forward

How does that trump Lechmereīs waiting three days to come forward? Why is it a large red flag for Hutchinson and a small yellow one for Lechmere?

3. Near impossible too detailed description of a "suspect".

Keep in mind that Reg said about Toppy that he never needed to write anything down - he remebered every little gizmo that went into his plumbing. Even if we swear ourselves free from any belief that Toppy was the man, it still tells us that some people have good memories and powers of observation.

But the main one is the stalking behavior. When I was new to ripperworld, before I had formed any hard ideas on suspects, when I read about this behavior with Hutch, and that it was probably corroborated by sarah Lewis, I thought-hmmmm interesting.

Here is some dude who says he knows her, spoke to her, followed her and then waited/watched for her for 3/4 of an hour in the middle of the night- a cold and rainy night. And then of course has no alibi for the rest of the night. That alone should raise your eyebrows.

But why do you look away from the added points adhering to Lechmere? Let me take just the one:

Hutchinson stood in Dorset Street for 45 minutes, outside a year in which there was a door leading to a room where a Ripper victim lived. He did this at a stage that may or may not have been close in time to the murder. But the accepted "truth" is that Kelly was killed around 4 AM, more than an hour after Hutchinson left.

Charles Lechmere was found alone with a victim that had been killed at the exact time when he was there, alone with her, or minutes only before it. No other person was reported to have been in place at the crucial time.

I donīt know how you evaluate evidence, but for me, this point only blows Hutchinson so far out of the water that heīd likely end up in the middle of Sahara! Compared to being found by a freshly killed victim, standing out in a street for 45 minutes, giving a detailed description of a person or arriving to the police after an inquest are just ridiculous comparisons. Ask any copper and youīll find out!

However, if your hunch is that Hutchinson is the better suspect, then Iīm fine with that. There is nothing wrong with hunches - Don Rumbelow pointed to Timothy Donovan and admitted that it was nothing but a hunch; fine!
But factually, Hutchinson falls very, very short of being any sort of comparison to Lechmere, Iīm afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Balderdash. And you weren't doing too bad before that.

The last time we discussed, you stated that the Torso killer was probably an organ harvester.

That is not a good position from which to yell balderdash.

And indeed, you are just as wrong this time too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

The last time we discussed, you stated that the Torso killer was probably an organ harvester.

It wouldn't matter if I believed in the Easter Bunny, the two are unrelated. Try playing the ball instead of the man.

That is not a good position from which to yell balderdash.

And indeed, you are just as wrong this time too.

You're living in dreamland if you genuinely believe Crossmere would've been charged on such flimsy evidence. Of course, you've got to be provocative with your pet theory, it's the only way it'll garner attention.

[Lechmere]

Thank you Abby
Although Fisherman has already answered some of the issues I would raise with your big red flags, I will give my twopennyworth

1. The stalking behaviour of following her and then waiting/watching out side her place

Given that we can only speak of Hutchinson’s behaviour from that one night (if you wish to exclude Toppy and Fleming from the equation) then I would suggest it is overstating things to say he stalked Kelly.
By his own account – which is all we have to go on – he saw her, then followed a short distance to see where she went and hung around a bit to see if she re-appeared. I don’t think this can be characterised as stalking. You could just say he was curious about what she was up to at a time when he had nothing else to do and nowhere else to go. Maybe he was just a bit of a nosey parker
The Lewis sighting doesn’t add to this beyond providing supposed corroboration for his story – yet as I never cease to point out – the police and press failed to draw a connection between the man Lewis saw and Hutchinson, even though at that stage in the Autumn of Terror every minute detail in the case was raked over. This leads me to draw the inevitable conclusion that Hutchinson was not the person seen by Lewis.

In comparison to Hutchinson’s proximity to Kelly (where he was the only self-witness) Lechmere was spotted by someone else, on his own, very close to the body.

2. Waiting until the inquest is over, to come forward.

The inquest was over and done with so quickly that I don’t think that much can be read into his non-appearance. He presented himself when he had no reason to, in that there is nothing that would have compelled him to come forward if he was guilty.
Even if Lewis had seen him, being a single man with no known ties of family or work, if guilty he could just have shifted to another district of London as many itinerant lodging house dwellers were want to do.
Having presented himself, we know that he did not just give a simple statement and disappear again into the smog. He gave what seemed to be a crucial piece of evidence and so was interrogated by Abberline. Afterwards he gave interviews to newspapers, and went out and about in company of policemen looking for the A-man. So what was he seeking to avoid by not attending the inquest? His actions after the inquest more than made up for any anonymity grated by his non-attendance.

We have no information that suggests Lechmere underwent any sort of interrogation.
He came forward late, only after he was implicated in a newspaper story.
His story was understated and unremarkable and was not picked and highlighted up by the press. There are no press interviews with him.
His family and work commitments meant it would have been difficult and dangerous for him to avoid coming forward

3. Near impossible too detailed description of a "suspect".

There are many explanations for this. It could be that he had good powers of observation. Equally many innocent witnesses over-elaborate as their imaginations run away with them and they try to be too helpful. I find it difficult to interpret the over-elaborate description as a sign of guilt. If he was taken seriously, as he was at first, then he would be central to the case and under more scrutiny. Then when the police put less emphasis on his evidence he would very likely have run the risk of putting himself in the spotlight. But he had already been interrogated and presumably passed that test – surely a mark against his candidacy?
This implies that if guilty he deliberately inserted himself in the investigation (as is sometimes claimed). I could make the same claim for Lechmere but I find it a weak argument, even though some criminals (not just serial killers) do this.
If he deliberately inserted himself then why did he wait until after the inquest? Why not take centre stage? This leads back to the supposed Lewis sighting and the weak suggestion that he spotted Lewis going into or leaving Shoreditch Town Hall to give evidence and this spooked him. In which case he didn’t deliberately insert himself and instead felt compelled to come forward. Yet if that is so, why give newspaper interviews and why give such an over-elaborate story? Why not just say he was hanging around Dorset Street and that he saw nothing. None of it adds up.
As you say he had no alibi.
He would have had to have wandered the streets until he could get back into the Victoria Home. After the blood splattered carnage in Millers Court. Again it doesn’t add up.

Lechmere gave a simple story that did not lead anywhere and he disappeared from view almost immediately. What is the better strategy?

[RockySullivan]

So how does Lechmere kill Kelly?

[Fisherman]

Harry D: It wouldn't matter if I believed in the Easter Bunny, the two are unrelated. Try playing the ball instead of the man.

To me it matters a whole lot. Especially when somebody who cannot see that the Torso killer would have been identified with the Ripper if there had been any suspecions of mutual organ harvesting takes it upon himself to dub a perfectly plausible suggestion balderdash.

You're living in dreamland if you genuinely believe Crossmere would've been charged on such flimsy evidence. Of course, you've got to be provocative with your pet theory, it's the only way it'll garner attention.

Dreamland is inhabited by people who think the Torso killer was an organ harvester.
As for the other question, do the maths:

He was found alone by a freshly killed victim, with nobody else noticed who could have been the killer.

He lied about his name when speaking to the police.

He lied his way past the police on the murder night.

All the killings have geographical ties to him.

They would have charged him alright.

In the event that you think it is a good idea to disagree, please donīt regard me as uncorteous for not joining in any further. I have said what I have to say.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

So how does Lechmere kill Kelly?

How?

Iīm not sure what youīre asking for here, Rocky. We know exactly, more or less, how she was killed.

Prater/Lewis puts the "murder!" scream close to 4 AM, which would roughly tally with Lechmereīs work trek.

Dorset Street afforded a shortcut from the Hanbury Street trek.

It works well with the Lechmere theory.

Are you having problems fitting Lechmere in for some reason?

The best,
Fisherman

[RockySullivan]

Well how does Lechmere know kelly? Is he a costermongers? Does she solicit him? If he he doesn't know her how he does he know how to get in thru the window? he just stumble upon her sleeping and he has no idea who or when anybody coming home at anytime.

[Harry D]

Well how does Lechmere know kelly? Is he a costermongers? Does she solicit him? If he he doesn't know her how he does he know how to get in thru the window? he just stumble upon her sleeping and he has no idea who or when anybody coming home at anytime.

Don't forget that apart from one particularly grim Autumn of 1888, the nefarious Ripper that is Crossmere then spent the next 30 odd years of his life without incident.

Someone had to find Nichols body. That someone was Crossmere. The end.