Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Lechmere]

Mr B
Plenty of over enthusiastic witnesses go into too much detail which is the product of their over enthusiastic minds - nothing necessarily sinister involved.

[Lechmere]

Abby
If we start drilling down into the detail, what is suspicious about not attending the inquest?
And should Hutchinson have expected the Kelly inquest to be over in one day? I don’t think so.
Given that Hutchinson then gave a press interview and went roaming the streets in company with a policeman, doesn’t that more than cancel out any supposed extra suspicion over his non-attendance at the inquest?

Lechmere said he found the victim.
Hutchinson is claimed by others to have engaged in ‘stalking’ behaviour. No one at the time suggested his behaviour was what we would now characterise as ‘stalking’.
Hutchinson claimed to know the victim – true – but is that grounds for suspicion? All the other victims seem to have been killed by an unknown assailant. Indeed that is usually (not always true) the way serial killers operate.
There is a potential connection between Lechmere and Kelly anyway.

The organs could have been taken to Lechmere’s work – which was not a spotless bright office, but a large dark warehouse complex with stables and all sorts of places where I image things could be secreted.
That is if the culprit kept them.
If Hutchinson kept them then they were in his pockets while he loitered through the night, and then where did he keep them at the lodging house – or did he surreptitiously scoff them for breakfast?

If Toppy, then he bragged about his involvement in later years, lived a happy go lucky, but sloppy lifestyle, cannot be linked to other murder scenes (after the autumn of Terror) so must have just stopped, had a seemingly happy and normal upbringing.

If Lechmere, he kept quiet about his involvement, lived a very much more serious lifestyle, was from a broken home, was brought up in the most overcrowded part of London, in the midst of the area that was seeing a large influx of immigration that may have acerbated a feeling of lost entitlement brought on by his family’s heritage.

[MrBarnett]

Double bingo, but this should be on another thread.

Prosector, perhaps you can answer this over there: do you think an experienced slaughterman or butcher would have the necessary knowledge and skill ?

MrB

[Abby Normal]

Well, I don't subscribe to the idea that Hutch had a photographic memory, so from my perspective his interaction with the police is totally suspect. But even if I did, I would still find it hard to envisage a plausible innocent reason for following a prostitute and her well-heeled client to her appartment and loitering outside.

Perhaps he was lonely and thought that after she'd done with Mr Astrakhan she'd invite him in for a nice cup of tea and a chat? Yeah, right. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

What I did leave out of my earlier post, though, is my current pet theory of Hutch acting as a lookout.

That's entirely possible! as is:
he was looking for a place to crash
he wanted to have sex with Mary
he wanted to rob Aman
he wanted to kill mary

[MrBarnett]

Mr B
If Hutchinson wasn't the killer what was he?
I notice the most obvious and reasonable explanation eluded you.
Perhaps he was someone who came forward as he thought he had some useful information to help the investigation.

Well, I don't subscribe to the idea that Hutch had a photographic memory, so from my perspective his interaction with the police is totally suspect. But even if I did, I would still find it hard to envisage a plausible innocent reason for following a prostitute and her well-heeled client to her apartment and loitering outside.

Perhaps he was lonely and thought that after she'd done with Mr Astrakhan she'd invite him in for a nice cup of tea and a chat? Yeah, right. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

What I did leave out of my earlier post, though, is my current pet theory of Hutch acting as a lookout.

[Abby Normal]

This hoary old argument about anatomical skill comes up yet again. I have written about it many times before but here goes again:

Bond, although he was nominally a surgeon at the Westminster, had almost no operating experience (read his obituary in the BMJ) as he only saw patients in the Out Patient Department. The only body he saw was MJK's and that was far too mutilated to say whether anatomical/surgical skill was involved except for the removal of the heart.

Phillips was easily the most experienced of all the police surgeons and he adamantly thought that anatomical knowledge and a little surgical skill was involved in all the cases.

As an ex-surgeon and teacher of anatomy I totally agree with Phillips for reasons too involved to go into here. I have a book being published next year which deals with it in much more depth. Suffice it say that my views are shared by many of my professional colleagues including Professor Harold Ellis, ex Professor of Surgery at the Westminster (Bond's old hospital) and probably the greatest living anatomist in the world.

Sorry to sound pompous but I really do think that questions of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge are best left to surgeons and anatomists who have actually carried out the same procedures themselves.

Prosector

Bingo-great post and totally agree.

Looking forward to your book!

[Prosector]

Harry D: I'd value Bagster Phillips's professional opinion over Bond's. Wasn't MJK the only victim that Bond had first-hand experience with? There wasn't anything leftover in that bloodbath to deduce any kind of anatomical skill from.

There was a lot of cut surfaces, and that´s how you determine the skill, believe it or not. In this respect, MAry Kelly was the victim that offered most things to go on, by far.
Anyhow, the consensus, more or less, amongst the doctors was that there was little or no skill involved. Phillips was an exception to the rule.

Also, in the case of the first two murders, the medical consensus of Dr Llewellyn, Baxter and Bagster Phillips was that the perpetrator was someone possessing some level of anatomical knowledge.

Llewellyn had Nichols to go on, and he said that the killer would have had some rough anatomical skill, since he had attacked all the vital parts. Whether he did so purposefull or not was open to discussion. Thomas Bodn - much superior to Llewellyn - read the report and disagreed.

Baxter was no medical man at all.

We can go on doing this forever, and it won´t change that the jury is out on the question of skill, Harry. Most doctors had a very hesitating take on the suggestion.

The key word being 'delivered'.

As you wish. The rest of us will probably take in that Lechmere spent decades around the slaughterhouses and meat depots, being able to pick up on - and perhaps participate in - all sorts of cutting practices.
If you think it is wise to diss that, then be my guest. But it will say a lot more about your readiness to accept important material than anything else.

Chase was completely away with the faeries and yet it took a month before he was caught, in 20th century America no less.

Have a look at where he committed his deeds. Look at how many people were around to disclose him. Then compare to the Ripper murder spots.

Could a schizophrenic have been able to get away with the murders within the seedy East End of Victorian London? I have little doubt that he would. He was targeting vulnerable, down-and-out whores and to borrow a quote, would've only had to ask "I'll give you a shilling for a blowjob" to get them onside.

It all sounds very neat and simple, I´m sure. And why look at the circumstances?

Just to recap:

Jacob Levy...
1) was a butcher.
2) was a Jew who got carted off to the asylum around the time the murders stopped and died thereafter.
3) his cousin was a potential witness, who got freaked out after seeing Eddowes with her (probable) killer.
4) by his wife's admission wandered the streets at night and harboured feelings of violence.
5) lived in the local area all his life.
6) was suffering (and died from) syphilis.
7) whose brother possibly lived in the Wentworth building, next to where the apron & GSG were found.
8) was arguably the Butcher's Row suspect.
9) is and remains bad suspect. Not worse than many others, but nevertheless bad.

You are welcome to try and discredit Levy as suspect, you've already tried in vain but don't let that stop you. Rest assured that even you should succeed in this quest, it does absolutely diddily squat to bolster Crossmere's case, because if Levy, with all that he has going for him, is considered a weak suspect, I have no idea what that says about Crossmere - a man who's only crime was apparently finding the first victim.

You go on fighting your little war, Harry dear. I have other things to do, so if you´ll excuse me...?

The very best,
Fisherman

This hoary old argument about anatomical skill comes up yet again. I have written about it many times before but here goes again:

Bond, although he was nominally a surgeon at the Westminster, had almost no operating experience (read his obituary in the BMJ) as he only saw patients in the Out Patient Department. The only body he saw was MJK's and that was far too mutilated to say whether anatomical/surgical skill was involved except for the removal of the heart.

Phillips was easily the most experienced of all the police surgeons and he adamantly thought that anatomical knowledge and a little surgical skill was involved in all the cases.

As an ex-surgeon and teacher of anatomy I totally agree with Phillips for reasons too involved to go into here. I have a book being published next year which deals with it in much more depth. Suffice it say that my views are shared by many of my professional colleagues including Professor Harold Ellis, ex Professor of Surgery at the Westminster (Bond's old hospital) and probably the greatest living anatomist in the world.

Sorry to sound pompous but I really do think that questions of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge are best left to surgeons and anatomists who have actually carried out the same procedures themselves.

Prosector

[Abby Normal]

Defective Detective
At least someone is on topic!
The similarities between Hutchinson and Lechmere are superficial.

Both came forward late - Lechmere after he was mentioned in a press report, Hutchinson after nothing really.

Both were witnesses - Lechmere was seen standing very close to a freshly murdered victim. Hutchinson came forward and placed himself in the street talking to the victim some time before she was killed.

Hutchinson courted his 15 minutes of fame with press interviews and accompanied the police on their patrols and had a look at the body in the mortuary.
Lechmere slipped in and out with the minimum of involvement.

We have reason to think the police involvement with Lechmere was not very thorough (his name not being recorded)
We know Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline.

We know Lechmere's places of interest (home, workplace, mother's house )and they can fit a pattern that explains the murder scenes.
We know nothing of Hutchinson's places of interest except he lived in the Victoria Home which had a late night curfew which would have made awkward for him to kill a series of victims after the curfew, as it would have drawn attention to his absence and mean that he had to wander the streets all night or book into an alternative lodging house on those nights, again drawing attention to himself.

We know who Lechmere was and aspects of his life fit the pattern for known serial killers.
Hutchinson was almost certainly Toppy Hutchinson, whose life does not fit that pattern at all.

So no, I would not regard Hutchinson as a likely candidate at all, although he is an interesting character in the overall story.

Hi Lech
lets be a little more accurate and objective here-shall we?

Both came forward late - Lechmere after he was mentioned in a press report, Hutchinson after nothing really.

Lechmere came forward-before the inquest and attended the inquest.
Hutch came forward only after the inquest was over.

Whats more suspicious?

Both were witnesses - Lechmere was seen standing very close to a freshly murdered victim. Hutchinson came forward and placed himself in the street talking to the victim some time before she was killed.

Lechmere found the body and has no other connection to the victim.
Hutch knew the victim, and engaged in stalking behavior towrd that victim.

Whats more suspicious?

Hutchinson courted his 15 minutes of fame with press interviews and accompanied the police on their patrols and had a look at the body in the mortuary.
Lechmere slipped in and out with the minimum of involvement.

At least Lech attended the inquest and gave his testimony under oath.
But I can concede that hutch's involvement (other than not attending the inquest)was risky if he was the killer.

We have reason to think the police involvement with Lechmere was not very thorough (his name not being recorded)
We know Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline.

point conceded!

We know Lechmere's places of interest (home, workplace, mother's house )and they can fit a pattern that explains the murder scenes.
We know nothing of Hutchinson's places of interest except he lived in the Victoria Home which had a late night curfew which would have made awkward for him to kill a series of victims after the curfew, as it would have drawn attention to his absence and mean that he had to wander the streets all night or book into an alternative lodging house on those nights, again drawing attention to himself.

Lech-work route near the killing grounds
Hutch-lived in epicenter of killing grounds

Tie-maybe slight edge to lech, although its hard to see how a organ taking serial killer does it on his way to work.

We know who Lechmere was and aspects of his life fit the pattern for known serial killers.
Hutchinson was almost certainly Toppy Hutchinson, whose life does not fit that pattern at all.

Lech-family man before, during and after murders with no record.
Hutch (if toppy)- Family man only after murders with no record

Lech would have to answer to his family
Hutch to no one.

Most experts believe the ripper was probably single.

Edge-Hutch

[Lechmere]

Jon

No
One said he found dead body.
The other said he interacted a victim shortly before she was murdered.

I said we had ‘reason to think’ that the police interaction with Lechmere as not very thorough because the police records that we do have – as late as seven weeks after his interaction – only record his name as Cross. There is nothing to suggest they knew his real name. You may choose to guess they did, but there is nothing beyond your personal assumption to back that up. Conversely the suggestion that they did not know his real name is backed up by the records that we do have.
In contrast we have it stated in black and white that Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline.
I hope you can see the difference there.

So you think you can say about ‘nearly everyone’ that the places they are most closely linked to ‘can fit a pattern that explains the murder scenes’?
Actually I think you will be pushed to find any named suspects where you can do that – or indeed any unnamed nobodies.

I am puzzled why you thought it worthy to mention that Hutchinson’s late night absences from the Victoria Home would be ‘less noticeable than someone`s wife noticing late night absence’.
If this is a reference to Lechmere’s wife then I assume you are unaware of Lechmere’s early hours start at Pickfords which would mean his wife would be none the wiser. But of course you are aware of Lechmere’s work schedule (OK presumed work schedule) so I am a bit mystified why you said this.

Which are the hot spots that a guilty Hutchinson could avoid on a murder night after he had slain a victim and may well have some blood on his person? Any random beat patrol by any random policeman perhaps?
I would suggest that wandering the streets (or even hiding in a stairwell) until the lodging houses reopen would not be a very safe course of action. You may feel otherwise of course. I am not suggesting it is impossible that the culprit could have just wandered the streets in such a manner but I think it more likely that he took refuge in some sort of reasonably local bolt hole, and when weighing up the two likelihoods – the bolt hole option is superior to the wandering option.
But hey! That’s just me.

Did Hutchinson have a police record for anything?
I’m not sure why you brought that up anyway as I did not make reference to either of them having a police record.

[Lechmere]

Mr B
If Hutchinson wasn't the killer what was he?
I notice the most obvious and reasonable explanation eluded you.
Perhaps he was someone who came forward as he thought he had some useful information to help the investigation.

[Jon Guy]

Both were witnesses - Lechmere was seen standing very close to a freshly murdered victim. Hutchinson came forward and placed himself in the street talking to the victim some time before she was killed..

Yes, one finds a dead body, and the other interacts with the victim shortly before she is murdered.

We have reason to think the police involvement with Lechmere was not very thorough (his name not being recorded)

Most of the police files are lost, how do you know his name was not recorded ? Maybe, the police didn`t even interview him but you can`t say that for certain.

We know Lechmere's places of interest (home, workplace, mother's house )and they can fit a pattern that explains the murder scenes..

Can say that about nearly anyone.

We know nothing of Hutchinson's places of interest except he lived in the Victoria Home ..

Which is located at the centre of the killing fields

which had a late night curfew which would have made awkward for him to kill a series of victims after the curfew, as it would have drawn attention to his absence .

Less noticeable than someone`s wife noticing late night absence
With Hutchinson, we know he roamed the streets on the morning Kelly was murdered.

and mean that he had to wander the streets all night or book into an alternative lodging house on those nights, again drawing attention to himself..

Or roam the streets staying clear of the hot spots.

We know who Lechmere was and aspects of his life fit the pattern for known serial killers..

Did he have a police record .. for anything ?

[MrBarnett]

Defective Detective
At least someone is on topic!
The similarities between Hutchinson and Lechmere are superficial.

Both came forward late - Lechmere after he was mentioned in a press report, Hutchinson after nothing really.

Both were witnesses - Lechmere was seen standing very close to a freshly murdered victim. Hutchinson came forward and placed himself in the street talking to the victim some time before she was killed.

Hutchinson courted his 15 minutes of fame with press interviews and accompanied the police on their patrols and had a look at the body in the mortuary.
Lechmere slipped in and out with the minimum of involvement.

We have reason to think the police involvement with Lechmere was not very thorough (his name not being recorded)
We know Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline.

We know Lechmere's places of interest (home, workplace, mother's house )and they can fit a pattern that explains the murder scenes.
We know nothing of Hutchinson's places of interest except he lived in the Victoria Home which had a late night curfew which would have made awkward for him to kill a series of victims after the curfew, as it would have drawn attention to his absence and mean that he had to wander the streets all night or book into an alternative lodging house on those nights, again drawing attention to himself.

We know who Lechmere was and aspects of his life fit the pattern for known serial killers.
Hutchinson was almost certainly Toppy Hutchinson, whose life does not fit that pattern at all.

So no, I would not regard Hutchinson as a likely candidate at all, although he is an interesting character in the overall story.

However, there remains the possibility that Lechmere was an innocent, upstanding member of the community. A hard working family man who never put a foot wrong in his life.

Whereas if Hutch isn't the killer, what is he? The choices seem to be a would-be mugger, a wastrel looking for a freebie from a drunken prostitute or an attention seeker who is prepared to sidetrack a murder enquiry to boost his self importance or earn a few bob.

FYI, I voted for Lech because although his being there can be innocently explained, the other little niggles give him the edge in my opinion.

MrB

[drstrange169]

Hello Rosella,

Crossmere's wife might have been a cleanliness freak for all we know, but we can safely say he wasn't wearing a white apron;-)

Pickfords carmen wore sacking aprons. If Crossmere wanted to look smart, he wouldn't have turned up in his work clothes.

It might well be true about the muslin, but that would also scotch Fish's notions about bloodstained carts. Far too many variables in this theory so far.

[Lechmere]

Defective Detective
At least someone is on topic!
The similarities between Hutchinson and Lechmere are superficial.

Both came forward late - Lechmere after he was mentioned in a press report, Hutchinson after nothing really.

Both were witnesses - Lechmere was seen standing very close to a freshly murdered victim. Hutchinson came forward and placed himself in the street talking to the victim some time before she was killed.

Hutchinson courted his 15 minutes of fame with press interviews and accompanied the police on their patrols and had a look at the body in the mortuary.
Lechmere slipped in and out with the minimum of involvement.

We have reason to think the police involvement with Lechmere was not very thorough (his name not being recorded)
We know Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline.

We know Lechmere's places of interest (home, workplace, mother's house )and they can fit a pattern that explains the murder scenes.
We know nothing of Hutchinson's places of interest except he lived in the Victoria Home which had a late night curfew which would have made awkward for him to kill a series of victims after the curfew, as it would have drawn attention to his absence and mean that he had to wander the streets all night or book into an alternative lodging house on those nights, again drawing attention to himself.

We know who Lechmere was and aspects of his life fit the pattern for known serial killers.
Hutchinson was almost certainly Toppy Hutchinson, whose life does not fit that pattern at all.

So no, I would not regard Hutchinson as a likely candidate at all, although he is an interesting character in the overall story.

[Rosella]

"It would seem that Pickfords on Broad Street handled meat to a very large extent..."

Interesting comment that I'd like to know more detail about.

At this stage I would rule out Crossmere being a meat carrier, as he appeared at the inquest in his apron and I'm sure the press would have commented on a blood stained apron.

Crossmere might have worn a clean, freshly starched apron to a court appearance. After all, he was a married man! Don't meat handlers usually carry joints, legs of meat etc wrapped in muslin over one shoulder? The apron wouldn't necessarily have been bloodied.