Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

I wonder if anyone today would pawn their shoes?

So why can't we accept that Cross would jump on a tarp that he could get a couple of bob, at least, for.

Oh, that is not any problem at all - I think I would accept any Eastender to jump on many a chance to make a little money.
My problem with this story is that there is a coupling between him being a carman and that tarpaulin that automatically leads people to accept/think/suggest that he would want so scavenge it ON ACCOUNT OF being a carman. Becuase thatīs what carmen would do, sort of.

We get a free fantasy picture of Lechmere wanting to scavenge the tarpaulin that has no substantiation in the records at all. And that has set itself off in many sources actually claiming that he did want to scavenge the tarp.
Itīs history on a sloping surface.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Oh, that is not any problem at all - I think I would accept any Eastender to jump on many a chance to make a little money.
My problem with this story is that there is a coupling between him being a carman and that tarpaulin that automatically leads people to accept/think/suggest that he would want so scavenge it ON ACCOUNT OF being a carman. Becuase thatīs what carmen would do, sort of.

We get a free fantasy picture of Lechmere wanting to scavenge the tarpaulin that has no substantiation in the records at all. And that has set itself off in many sources actually claiming that he did want to scavenge the tarp.
Itīs history on a sloping surface.

The best,
Fisherman

Ok no probs then because I honestly think anyone in Whitechapel would pick up anything that was dumped that might bring in a couple of pennies, let alone something like a tarp.

The only reason, in my opinion, to link it to hm being a carman would be that he'd probably have a better understanding of its value that a Joe average.

[Fisherman]

Ok no probs then because I honestly think anyone in Whitechapel would pick up anything that was dumped that might bring in a couple of pennies, let alone something like a tarp.

The only reason, in my opinion, to link it to hm being a carman would be that he'd probably have a better understanding of its value that a Joe average.

Yes, exactly - and thatīs why I think it is so treacherous: we tend to buy his version, and we add our own little bit by assuming that, as a carman, he would want to scavenge the tarpaulin. We add to and fortify his own story, we relate to it, we take it under our wings.
And all the while, we forget that maybe the perspective we need to employ, is one where he always knew that it was a woman lying there, for the simple reason that he killed her.

Lechmere has always had the advantage of getting trusted. Even Swanson, who really, really should have known better, did Lechmereīs errands for him by stating that Lechmere and Paul found the body together. And every damn author that has written about the Ripper murders have told the Nichols story the way Lechmere served it, while they really, really should have known that they needed to be less uncritically accepting an uncorroborated story, told by a man who was found right next to a freshly slaughtered woman.

It could well be that Lechmere pulled that tarpaulin over our eyes. I for one think he did.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Mr B
Well yes, Lechmere and Hutchinson had different circumstances.
Lechmere had a regular job, family and foxed abode. He had to get to work each day. If he did not come forward after the appearance of the Paul newspaper story then it is very likely the police would have gone looking for him. If he was found he would not be in control of events. If he came forward in a controlled manner he could to a large extent set the agenda.
If he gave completely false details then if the police wanted to find him for some supplementary question he would be back to square one but in a lot more trouble when found. AS it was, with the information he gave, the name swap would be the one thing to explain away, but it would be explainable.
Lechmere was a prisoner of his circumstance. It would have been about minimising risk.
Again this has been gone through numerous times.

Hutchinson – if he was neither Toppy nor Fleming – then he could easily have just disappeared rather than making a name for himself and drawing attention to himself. But he didn’t.
I would have expected Abberline’s interrogation to include details of his antecedents – and indeed where he went after loitering in Dorset Street. These are his famous non alibis. However non alibis tend to leave unanswered question marks, and the police don’t tend to like such things.

But to bring this on topic, does being an itinerant rather than a family man make someone more or less likely to be a serial killer? I guess statistically fewer serial killers have been family men, so that ‘fact’ is about the only thing Hutchinson has going for him in comparison to Lechmere.
However it is not uncommon for a serial killer to be a family man, so that sort of analysis doesn’t help very much.

[Jon Guy]

... and thereīs the old tarpaulin scavenging myth again! A few more mentionings and it will become a truth!

My bet is that Pickfords actually supplied whatever tarpaulins that were needed - he was not his own man, you know.

I think you totally misunderstand this, as you put it, "old tarpaulin scavenging myth" thing.

You are aware that back then, unlike today`s sadly, disposable world, that every scrap of rubbish was utilised, don`t you. The only thing that was left lying around was the rubbish that could not be re-used or traded.
A tarpaulin would not have lain very long before someone took it, especially someone who would have used them daily.
Maybe Pickfords did supply carts, horses, tarpaulins and knives but Cross wouldn`t have owned them, would he ?
Why do you think he started walking over to check what the shape was lying outside the stable gates ?

[Sally]

Why do you think he started walking over to check what the shape was lying outside the stable gates ?

Why, to admire his handiwork - obviously. Surely you don't think Crossmere could've had an innocent reason for checking out the 'tarpaulin' do you??

Come On!

I feel a bit sorry for him, actually - 3-1 would rather have Hutchinson, apparently - and given the wholesale groaning and eye-rolling that inevitably results on here whenever his name comes up, I'd say that was pretty indicative of the situation.

Ah well, back to work I guess....

P.S. - So we don't think Kosminski did it now, then?? It's so hard to keep up with current thinking...

[GUT]

Why, to admire his handiwork - obviously. Surely you don't think Crossmere could've had an innocent reason for checking out the 'tarpaulin' do you??

Come On!

I feel a bit sorry for him, actually - 3-1 would rather have Hutchinson, apparently - and given the wholesale groaning and eye-rolling that inevitably results on here whenever his name comes up, I'd say that was pretty indicative of the situation.

Ah well, back to work I guess....

P.S. - So we don't think Kosminski did it now, then?? It's so hard to keep up with current thinking...

Well I never though Koz did it, but then again I am yet to see any suspect that I'd go so far as to say "I think he done it".

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

I think you totally misunderstand this, as you put it, "old tarpaulin scavenging myth" thing.

I rather think I did nothing of the sort.

You are aware that back then, unlike today`s sadly, disposable world, that every scrap of rubbish was utilised, don`t you.

Yes, I am quite aware of that.

The only thing that was left lying around was the rubbish that could not be re-used or traded.

Together with things people accidentally dropped, yes. Otherwise the "tarpaulin" in Buckīs Row couldnīt be re-used or traded, and if it was an unfallible truth that nothing worth anything was left behind, Lechmere would have known that the "tarpaulin" was useless.

A tarpaulin would not have lain very long before someone took it, especially someone who would have used them daily.

I think that anybody would have taken it, it would have been finders keepers. Those who did not use tarpaulins on a daily basis would not stand aside waiting for a professional to come along.

Maybe Pickfords did supply carts, horses, tarpaulins and knives but Cross wouldn`t have owned them, would he ?

No, he would not. But the myth goes that he used tarpaulins, so he would go for the one in Buckīs Row. He didnīt have to, if Pickfords supplied them. The only reason he would have to go for it would be the same reason as anybody else would have - not to use it but to sell it.

Why do you think he started walking over to check what the shape was lying outside the stable gates ?

I donīt think he did. I think he lied about it. Try and see who corroborates the story as such, and you will find that nobody does. Paul doesnīt hear him go over. Paul doesnīt see him go over. Paul doesnīt hear him in front of himself. Paul sees him standing still in the middle of the street as he arrives. By the side of a freshly killed woman.

So if he killed Nichols, he had two choices at the inquest:

1. To say that he didnīt have to look what the bundle was, as he already knew after having killed Nichols, or
2. To lie about it, and make up a story that sounded credible and commandable.

I think we can both guess how he would have reasoned.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

Come off it, Fisherman. If you were really interested in historical accuracy, you would be as objective as possible. You would be open-minded and receptive to alternative theories. Instead, you've nailed your colours to the mast and will do everything to advance the myth that Crossmere was the Ripper. Like I said, the main crux of your argument is that Crossmere was found with the body (someone had to find it), he acted suspiciously (which is only one interpretation, there's also a perfectly innocent one), and that his work route took him through some of the murder sites (how many known serial killers killed on their way to work?).

If you want people to start taking your little theory seriously:

Provide evidence that Crossmere had the required skill for the mutilations.

Providence evidence that Crossmere had a violent/criminal past.

Providence evidence that Crossmere continued killing after the Whitechapel Murders. If not, why did he stop?

That would be a start.

[Jon Guy]

. Otherwise the "tarpaulin" in Buckīs Row couldnīt be re-used or traded, and if it was an unfallible truth that nothing worth anything was left behind, Lechmere would have known that the "tarpaulin" was useless.

What ? The tarpaulin was useless ?!?!?

.
I think that anybody would have taken it, it would have been finders keepers. Those who did not use tarpaulins on a daily basis would not stand aside waiting for a professional to come along..

You contradict yourself. Didn`t you just state that the tarpaulin was useless ?

I]But the myth goes that he used tarpaulins, so he would go for the one in Buckīs Row. He didnīt have to, if Pickfords supplied them. The only reason he would have to go for it would be the same reason as anybody else would have - not to use it but to sell it.

So, if he lost, damaged or had his Pickford`s tarpaulin he wouldn`t have to pay to cover damages or have it replaced ? Because that`s how it worked in those days. If you lost or damaged company property it was taken out of your wages.
Cross would have know people where horses were fed, people who minded carts , people who repaired carts and so on.... not forgetting his leaking old roof, or the outside bog ....

I donīt think he did. I think he lied about it. Try and see who corroborates the story as such, and you will find that nobody does. Paul doesnīt hear him go over. Paul doesnīt see him go over. Paul doesnīt hear him in front of himself. Paul sees him standing still in the middle of the street as he arrives. By the side of a freshly killed woman..

Well, 10 feet away from a freshly killed woman.
So, Paul, at 3.30 in the morning trudging to work, was half asleep and not cocking his head like a hawk.
We need to put these things in perspective, it was 3.30 in the morning. !!

So if he killed Nichols, he had two choices at the inquest:

1. To say that he didnīt have to look what the bundle was, as he already knew after having killed Nichols, or
2. To lie about it, and make up a story that sounded credible and commandable.

I think we can both guess how he would have reasoned.

Quite simply, the best choice would have been to tell the truth.

[Sally]

Well I never though Koz did it, but then again I am yet to see any suspect that I'd go so far as to say "I think he done it".

In all seriousness, I doubt we'll ever know who did it [in the singular or plural]

But we can all live in hope, all the same.

[Westbourne Wink]

Hello!

Well I think we've got a lot of people working very hard to make it sound perfectly reasonable that Lechmere mistook a body for a tarpaulin.

In my book that's a mistake you don't make.

PC Neil saw it was woman without his lamp 'I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street'. He mentions the light of street light at this point, an aid that was available to every one who came by.

Then the idea that he could perfectly easily see it was a body not a tarpaulin is excused by the fact Neil came to her from the other side!! Because heads are so much less distinctive than feet of course.... hmmmm... not really.

And I see later that someone is saying it has to be proved that Lechmere had the 'skill' to inflict the wounds.

Not only is this an old, tired and discredited idea (the Ripper showed no particular skill, just rudimentary anatomocial knowledge) but Lechmere would have had plenty of knowledge had he needed it.

[Jon Guy]

Hello :-)

PC Neil saw it was woman without his lamp 'I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street'. .

Hmmm.... I can see a pattern here.
The police officer thought it was the figure of a person.
The carman thought it was a tarpaulin
The soldier thought it was a couple of Zulu`s
The builder thought it was a pile of bricks

[Harry D]

Hello!

Well I think we've got a lot of people working very hard to make it sound perfectly reasonable that Lechmere mistook a body for a tarpaulin.

In my book that's a mistake you don't make.

PC Neil saw it was woman without his lamp 'I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street'. He mentions the light of street light at this point, an aid that was available to every one who came by.

Then the idea that he could perfectly easily see it was a body not a tarpaulin is excused by the fact Neil came to her from the other side!! Because heads are so much less distinctive than feet of course.... hmmmm... not really.

And I see later that someone is saying it has to be proved that Lechmere had the 'skill' to inflict the wounds.

Not only is this an old, tired and discredited idea (the Ripper showed no particular skill, just rudimentary anatomocial knowledge) but Lechmere would have had plenty of knowledge had he needed it.

The whole point about the tarpaulin is a moot one. It could be that Crossmere was lying through his teeth. That doesn't prove he was the murderer. One could just as easily rationalize that he invented the story because he was afraid of being fitted up for the crime. But nope, much simpler to assume he was the killer and go from there.

As for the anatomical knowledge, there is no doubt that the killer possessed a certain level of skill to disembowel someone neatly and swiftly, under the cover of night. Let's see a shred of evidence that Crossmere had any such knowledge.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Come off it, Fisherman. If you were really interested in historical accuracy, you would be as objective as possible.

If people out here were as objective as possible, they would recognize that being found alone by a freshly slaughtered woman is not an everyday thing. For starters.

You would be open-minded and receptive to alternative theories.

Believe me - I am. You just present a theory that has more going for it than mine, and Iīll change sides immediately.

Instead, you've nailed your colours to the mast and will do everything to advance the myth that Crossmere was the Ripper.

Calling it a myth is nailing YOUR colours to the opposite side. How "open-minded" of you!

Like I said, the main crux of your argument is that Crossmere was found with the body (someone had to find it), he acted suspiciously (which is only one interpretation, there's also a perfectly innocent one), and that his work route took him through some of the murder sites (how many known serial killers killed on their way to work?).

Read post 113.

If you want people to start taking your little theory seriously:

Provide evidence that Crossmere had the required skill for the mutilations.

Providence evidence that Crossmere had a violent/criminal past.

Providence evidence that Crossmere continued killing after the Whitechapel Murders. If not, why did he stop?

That would be a start.

Yeah, but it would not be enough, would it?
He has more going for himself than any other suspect, and thatīs fine by me. That makes it not only legitimate, but actually necessary to forward him.

But you donīt need to participate if you donīt want to - just leave it to me, and then you can tend to the Torso killer.

The best,
Fisherman