Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Harry D]

Yes, you actually do have to remind me that Rader started up again, because thatīs news to me. As far as I know, what he did was to respond to the policeīs seting a trap for his pride. I always thought that Rader was caught fourteen years after his last murder, having committed no murders in those fourteen years.

Maybe Iīm about to learn something new, though...?

My bad, Fish, I was under the impression that there was an eight year hiatus in Rader's killing spree from 1977 - 1985? Am I mistaken in this belief?

As for the explanation to why Lechmere stopped killing, I have already told you that

A/ There are examples of those who did, and

There are always exceptions to the rule, but if you think that the one of the most gruesome serial killers in history, the same man who butchered MJK beyond recognition, threw up his apron afterwards and called it a day, you've got some 'splainin to do.

And again, it's ironic, because when it came to Levy as a suspect you couldn't help citing the precedent for the lack of 'insane' serial killers, but when it comes to Crossmere's murder history, you're willing to buck the odds?

B/ We have absolutely no idea whether Lechmere DID stop killing or not.

Ah, the old 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' argument? Nice try but the burden of proof isn't on me to show that Crossmere DIDN'T kill after the C5. I don't believe Crossmere was an evil cyborg sent back from the future to kill the mother of John Connor, either. Do I need to show evidence for that?

It would be a futile exercise to try and explain what we cannot know happened.

Not when it's a pretty big piece missing from your jigsaw.

It was a more fruitful exercise to turn your reasoning about my supposed bias against yourself, though - it really, really seems as though you are dead set on proving to yourself that I am fitting Lechmere up.

Fish, it's not my belief that you're trying to fit Crossmere up for the crimes. There's an untold number of posts on this very forum which can attest to that fact. He's a complete non-starter as a suspect, whose only crime was finding the first victim. All you've done afterwards is interpret his subsequent behaviour in a suspicious light and tried to make all kinds of tenuous links to fit him up as the Ripper, to the point that you claim he would "probably have been charged" if the police had investigated him, despite the sheer lack of evidence to support this bold claim.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
I agree, I don't find an apparent different MO a big problem in general to serial killers, they change their MO for many reasons. Nor specifically between the torso man and the ripper either.

I struggle comprehending how two such monsters could be operating at the same time/place at such an early time in the history of serial killers.

I also see a connection between the different torsos with each other and to some extant with the ripper, as all had abdominal mutilations.

I have said it before and I will say it again: If the torso and ripper murders were by the same man perhaps the ripper murders were done when the killer could not bring the victims to his private locations, and had to kill them on the streets. And the torso murders were when he could bring them somewhere private, be it his home, or place of work and then the dismemberment was done for ease of removal of bodies.

I also see a lack of need to hide the victims-on the contrary it seems both series the killer may want to have the bodies/parts found-and to be shocking. and of course their is the victimology.

as a carman, lech has access to a cart, would be familiar with a wider swath of London that the torsos/parts were found, fits the age and his particular work and home situation might offer the explanation that I mentioned above re aparrent different MO.

Yes, Abby, to a large extent, it is a question of how we ask the question:

Would a killer who carefully dismembered bodies away from people turn into a vicious eviscerator, killing in the open streets?

or

In an age when serial killers were extremely rare, would two serialists emerge in the same metropolis, both targetting prostitutes to at least some degree, both seeming intent on shocking people and both displaying a liking for cutting victimīs stomachs open?

The theatric element fascinates me, and often has me wondering - but then I remember how many of these weird people we call serialists have been proud of what they did and have shown it off, and I start doubting things again.

All in all, I am certain that we need to break the old taboo surrounding speaking about these two horrific killers in the same sentence. And when we add the name "Lechmere" to that sentence, we get a very interesting nave to center our thoughts around...

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal: Hi fish and lech
Just a couple of not related points.

Mizen scam: what are the chances that lech lied and said their was a police man waiting for Mizen and lo and behold when he gets there, ones there. In my mind, I still lean toward Mizen simply misrembering. However, it's on record that Mizen said that's what the carman told him, so I concede that you have the evidence on your side.

Having things on record stops very few Ripperologists, Abby, so Iīm glad that at least you recognize that the evidence is on our side.

I have all sorts of trouble accepting that Mizen would have misrembered things. It would predispose that he was NOT told about any PC in Buckīs Row, then he found one there, and for some very odd reason went "The carman must have said that there was a PC here".

Why would Mizen do that? Why would he even think it? Would the normal reaction not be "Oh, hereīs a colleague of mine - he must have arrived after the carmen were here."

Plus, of course, we can see in which scenario Mizenīs reactions pan out - the continued knocking up before he went to Buckīs Row does not fortify the suggestion that the carman told him there was an urgency, and Mizens failure to tell his superiors that Neil was wrong about being the first to find the body tells us that Lechmere DID lie about the other PC.

Drs/skill: it's no surprise that some of the drs would want to distance themselves and their profession from the killer, much the same way they did with the American dr wanting to procure specimens story. The amount of experts, then and now, who claim the ripper had some surgical skill and anatomical knowledge makes me think that was probably the case.

... and thatīs where it will get you: "probably". But not certainly. If you had banked on the amount of doctors then and now that told you that there was no skill, then you would think that he probably was unskilled. Probably. But not certainly.

I leave both options open myself. When it comes to Lechmere, his family was well versed in the catīs meat business, and there is every reason to think he may have helped out, cutting away to his heartīs delight (whatever THAT was...).

Torsos: I Beleive fish that this is the first time you have said that the torso killer and the ripper may have been the same man. I think that in all probability they were not, but Beleive in the possibility much more than most. Especially after Debra showed that all the torsos had evidence of abdominal mutilations.

Since I think that Lechmere was the killer, it would be very odd not to ponder him in the torso killerīs role. The Pinchin Street torso fits neatly with his geography, as you will know, and Lechmere was old enough to have killed the Battersea and Putney victims, in 1873 and 1874, respectively.

Itīs like I say - the carman has all sorts of bad luck, always being able to meet any demands, geographical ones as well as those related to timings. Now we can see that he would have dealt with meat for many years, so he fits that pattern too, if we wish to make it a demand. Some do.
Add to this that he was in his mid twenties when the torso murders began! George Chapman, suggested as the torso killer by Gordon, was eight by then, so Gordon stays well away from the early torso killings.

But Lechmere fits, agewise. Once again, he has the poor luck of being available for the accusation. Geographically and agewise, he spans the areas that need covering. And he had access to a horse and cart, absolutely necessary to be the torso killer.

I have no problems realizing that the sets of murders are different in character. But Peter Kürtens bludgeonings, his strangulations and his finishing people off with a pair of scissors are also different characterwise.

To me, it is obvious that we must try Lechmere in the torso killers role too and see if he fits. Others will say that I donīt care about the truth as long as I can accuse Lechmere of something, but I really couldnīt care less about that.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
I agree, I don't find an apparent different MO a big problem in general to serial killers, they change their MO for many reasons. Nor specifically between the torso man and the ripper either.

I struggle comprehending how two such monsters could be operating at the same time/place at such an early time in the history of serial killers.

I also see a connection between the different torsos with each other and to some extant with the ripper, as all had abdominal mutilations.

I have said it before and I will say it again: If the torso and ripper murders were by the same man perhaps the ripper murders were done when the killer could not bring the victims to his private locations, and had to kill them on the streets. And the torso murders were when he could bring them somewhere private, be it his home, or place of work and then the dismemberment was done for ease of removal of bodies.

I also see a lack of need to hide the victims-on the contrary it seems both series the killer may want to have the bodies/parts found-and to be shocking. and of course their is the victimology.

as a carman, lech has access to a cart, would be familiar with a wider swath of London that the torsos/parts were found, fits the age and his particular work and home situation might offer the explanation that I mentioned above re aparrent different MO.

[Fisherman]

How large a part?

I donīt know the answer to that question, Gut. If I did, you would know it too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi drstrange169 et al,

I found this link on NZ exports to GB, which may be interesting on this matter

http://www.techhistory.co.nz/19thcentury/Meat.htm

Yours, Caligo.

Interesting stuff, Caligo. In the context of what we are discussing, I noted that in 1893, 16 per cent of the total beef and pork consumption in Britain was frozen beef and pork from USA. That is an interesting figure, and a piece of information we need to consider in this discussion.

If we take a look at Dr Stranges listings (which only concerns beef, but may be a useful indicator nevertheless), we find that between 1888 and 1893, the ratio was doubled, roughly speaking. That would presumably mean that USA supplied around 8 per cent of the meat consumed in Britain in 1888 (if the pork figures roughly followed the beef figures). If we add other exporters, we may perhaps need to speak about a rough figure of ten per cent of the meat consumed in Britain having itīs origin in other countries and being shipped into Britain in frozen form.

Perhaps frozen meat was shipped to London from other parts of Britain as well, I donīt know. And maybe meat was imported in other forms than frozen.

It also applies that we do not know to what extent this meat passed through the Broad Street depot!
But no matter what applies, we at least get a rough picture of the kinds of overall volumes we are speaking of (a bit more than what a carman would be able to singlehandedly deal with), and that is always useful. So thanks for your post, Caligo!

Maybe I should add to this post too that Lechmereīs viability as the killer is not directly coupled to the import ratios of frozen pork. The two entities are not communicating vessels.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

If you had read the posts from the latest two days you would see that nobody disagrees with you on that score. The Broad Street depot did not only handle meat, but meat was a very large part of the business.

The best,
Fisherman

How large a part?

[GUT]

Hi drstrange169 et al,

I found this link on NZ exports to GB, which may be interesting on this matter

http://www.techhistory.co.nz/19thcentury/Meat.htm

Yours, Caligo.

Interesting stuff Caligo, thank you/

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi all,

I had a read through the thread and perhaps I missed something but, isn't it a possibility that, shortly after leaving the body on Bucks row to go and find a PC, either Cross or Paul turned and looked behind them - that is to say back toward the body - and saw that a constable had come upon the scene.
In the darkness its quite possible they wouldn't be visible but someone by the body would be illuminated by the lamp just across the road. As they were both keen to get to work without further delay they might feel no need to return to speak with that PC as they could see the matter was now being dealt with by the authority they had sought.
So, when they happened upon Mizen, Cross could have mentioned that a constable was at the scene, without ever having had to have been sent by that constable. Mizen might easily have inferred that a fellow PC had sent them.

Your, Caligo.

[Fisherman]

>> ...it IS the truth that the Broad Street depot handled meat to a very significant extent, as per a renowned expert ...

Hello Fish, That wouldn't happen to be a John Moore University expert would it?

This meat thing is some what symptomatic of the whole case against Crossmere.

As MrB has pointed out. Arthur Ingram's book specifically points out he has no expertise in pre-motorized Pickfords.

I've been researching Broad Street for a few months now and whilst I'm far from expert, I've yet to uncover a single reference to meat being handled there in the 1880's. That seems a very odd statistic if meat was supposed to be their main fare. And there's is a good reason why that is the case, Smithfields had a direct rail link that went to their basement goods yard.


"... beneath the market buildings (Smithfields) lay an extensive basement area enabling livestock to be brought to the market by rail, unloaded and taken straight to the market above for sale."
(GWR Goods Services – Part 2A – Goods Depots and their Operation written by Tony Atkins)

(See diagram below)



>> As I understood things, the meat that came to to Broad Street was apparently predominantly meat shipped in from the sea and brought to the depot, like for example South-american meat. <<

Below is a contemporary table that shows the amount of imported meat from South America. As you can see the yearly total from South America for the WHOLE of the U.K. in 1888 wouldn't supply a week's work for one man, let alone the busiest goods yard in the country.In fact, prior to 1884, there was NO meat coming in from South America.


>>The volumes were of such proportions so as to ensure that Lechmere or any carman that worked for a long period of time in Broad Street would have been involved with it.<<

Not according to my research, quite the contrary in fact. The volumes do dramatically increase in the years after 1888. Perhaps your expert was a little confused, maybe even misplaced a decimal point;-)



>> He does agree, however, that it seems completely logical to expect that carmen would have carried knives to be able to cut their harnesses in the events of accidents <<

As, of course, would Paul, a pocket knife.



>>Arthur Ingram ... I tend to think that he would know.<<

At this stage, I'm thinking not, but we'll see.

This is interesting, Dr Strange. I would like to point out that I do not know where the meat that supposedly arrived at Broad Street came from. South America was mentioned, but only as an example. For all I know, it may have arrived from many countries, and there are some contributors on your list that represent very much larger volumes; ten times more, or even twohundred times more.

As I do not know to what extent the different countries employed the Broad Street depot, I will not make any guess of my own. Furthermore, I donīt know if meat found itīs way into the depot in other ways. It will have to remain an open question until further notice. Iīm sure people will research it, and we will get a clearer image.

Maybe we will end up with an uncertainty as to whether Lechmere carted meat for Pickfords or not - it would not be very odd, since very nearly all matters relating to the case involve uncertainties. We shall see.

Either way, what it wonīt change is the carmans viability as a suspect. But then again, maybe thatīs secondary.

The best,
Fisherman

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi drstrange169 et al,

I found this link on NZ exports to GB, which may be interesting on this matter

http://www.techhistory.co.nz/19thcentury/Meat.htm

Yours, Caligo.

[Fisherman]

I have a real problem with a claim that the Pickford's depot [probably at the time their biggest] nearest possibly the busiest freight terminal in London carted only meat, when Pickford's were General Carriers. In fact I have seen photos here on Casebook of Pickford wagons [said to be at Broad Street] loaded to the hilt with boxes of general cargo were they actually Broad street I have no idea.

If you had read the posts from the latest two days you would see that nobody disagrees with you on that score. The Broad Street depot did not only handle meat, but meat was a very large part of the business.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Fish,

I am one of those on the look-out for a connection to the meat business. But what I had in mind was someone who had become inured to killing and evisceration, not someone whose experience was limited to carting boxes of corned beef to Sainsbury's.

When did we agree that this was all the Broad Street carman job meant?

By the way, I have read Mr. Ingrams' history of Pickfords. He is clearly an expert on motorised transport and devotes only 4 pages of text to the 250 year history of Pickfords prior to the motor age. In fact, the dustwrapper blurb makes a point of saying that he had to research outside his field to produce even this brief introduction.

Yes, he is probably less informed than the average man on the street about the pre-motorized world. Unless itīs the other way around.

Itīs all fine to question things and adapt a critical perspective, Mr Barnett. But when we decide that dissing is always the better approach, we may have gone very wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Hello Gut,

It was all sheep and convicts back then, much like tomorrow will be at the races!

No convicts by '88 but lots of sheep tomorrow.

[drstrange169]

Hello Gut,

It was all sheep and convicts back then, much like tomorrow will be at the races!

[GUT]

I now know why Jack committed his murders, just look at Dusty's table and see how little good old Aussie beef there was n 1887 and '88 enough to drive anyone to killing.