Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[drstrange169]

" ... found this link on NZ exports to GB"

Hello Caligo, this is what I love about this hobby, who else would avidly read a 1912 book called, "The History Of Frozen Meat"? ;-)

" ... we find that between 1888 and 1893, the ratio was doubled, roughly speaking ..."

Hello Fish,

That rise was directly due to the viability of frozen meat shipping. After a few false starts it started really kicking in 1889.
(Listen to me, one old book and I'm an expert;-)

[Barnaby]

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.

Wasn't the Torso killer also dumping bodies in the river? I don't have a problem with MO differences as these could be explained by inconsistent access to a secure private location, but I do have a problem with the signature. If the Torso killer was Jack, I'd expect his body dumps to be such as to maximize shock value.

[Fisherman]

And you are presuming that Rader and Jack were both sexual killers.

And Rader stopped between the ages of 32 and 40, the perhaps at the height of his sexual drive [after 25].

These are the dates of Raders kills (or attacks with an intent to kill):

15 januari 1974
4 april 1974
4 april 1974
17 mars 1977
8 december 1977
27 april 1985
16 september 1986
19 januari 1991

Five attacks in the first four years. An eight year hiatus. Two attacks in two years. A five year hiatus. One single attack. A fourteen year period with no kills, and then the police nails him.

Can you see the drop? I can.

As for the sexual element, Rader masturbated over his victims, and he said that he enjoyed sexual fantasies while planning the deeds.

Here´s a quotation from his own lips: "I'm sorry this happen to society. They are the ones who suffer the most. It hard to control myself. You probably call me 'psychotic with sexual perversion hang-up."

Here is another one, concerning Marine Hedge, one of his victims: "After that, since I was still in the sexual fantasy, I went ahead and stripped her."

Rader was considered sexually immature by psychiatrists, and they believed that was why he did not rape his victims, instead fantazising about them and masturbating on them.

Whether the Ripper killed for sex or not we cannot tell. But we do know that he attacked the genitals and the reproductive organs, and we know that taking trophies in the shape of inner organs is normally related to sex.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

(Listen to me, one old book and I'm an expert;-)

It takes a lot less for some, so you should be proud of yourself...
And yes, I realize that these were times when the frozen meat trade was growing very fast - it´s clearly shown by the figures you provided.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

Fish, if you were truly as objective as you claim to be and simply on a hunt for the 'truth' you would readily accept that Crossmere's apparent cessation from murdering, or the lack of any subsequent murders being tied to him, is a legitimate criticism of him as a suspect. But because you are so entrenched in your belief that he WAS the Ripper, you are trying to explain around it and proposing arguments from ignorance.

[Fisherman]

Fish, if you were truly as objective as you claim to be and simply on a hunt for the 'truth' you would readily accept that Crossmere's apparent cessation from murdering, or the lack of any subsequent murders being tied to him, is a legitimate criticism of him as a suspect. But because you are so entrenched in your belief that he WAS the Ripper, you are trying to explain around it and proposing arguments from ignorance.

Harry!

There are a number of unsolved murders where Lechmere can be logically placed near the spots.
I will not give these murders away, since there is work proceeding on a book about Lechmere as the killer.

I have told you a zillion times that I don´t think he stopped killing in 1888. That stands, but I will not provide the examples; they are not my research. But they are there.

Otherwise, generally speaking, I know quite well that serialists very often keep on killing until they are halted for some reason. I do not think it is something that will hold true in all cases, though - a close shave could well have ended the carreers of some of these guys, as could changed circumstances in some form.

That´s not to say that you are wrong - you are not. The statistics are on your side - if the Ripper was not killed, taken ill, incarcerated or fled the country, he would arguably go on killing in the area. And - just like I say - I think that Lechmere DID go on killing.

You seem to think that if he went on killing, he must have done so employing the exact same MO as in the Ripper series. I disagree with that - I think he could well have been done with the ripping, perhaps throwing in a less than enthusiastic effort on MacKenzie and then abandoning something that did not give him what he was looking for anymore. That´s just a guess, but a guess that works for me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

There are a number of unsolved murders where Lechmere can be logically placed near the spots.
I will not give these murders away, since there is work proceeding on a book about Lechmere as the killer.

Fair enough. Then, for now, you will have to concede that you cannot show me any evidence that Crossmere continued killing after the Whitechapel murders.

I have told you a zillion times that I don´t think he stopped killing in 1888. That stands, but I will not provide the examples; they are not my research. But they are there.

That's your prerogative, Fisherman. Need I remind you that you're the one here stating with some confidence that Crossmere was the Ripper. At the very least you should be prepared for someone to ask you if or why Crossmere stopped killing.

Otherwise, generally speaking, I know quite well that serialists very often keep on killing until they are halted for some reason. I do not think it is something that will hold true in all cases, though - a close shave could well have ended the carreers of some of these guys, as could changed circumstances in some form.

Generally speaking, I don't disagree with that. On the other hand, Jack wasn't your average serial killer. He wasn't just going around killing women, he was mutilating them and taking out their organs, be it in public streets, someone's backyard or in the victim's bedroom. On at least one of those occasions he was seconds away from being caught. This depicts a disorganised risk-taker with a violent fetish and a lucky streak. I doubt that the same man who spent the night dissecting MJK beyond all recognition was the type to decide his work was done and call it quits. That wasn't a rational mind at work.

That´s not to say that you are wrong - you are not. The statistics are on your side - if the Ripper was not killed, taken ill, incarcerated or fled the country, he would arguably go on killing in the area. And - just like I say - I think that Lechmere DID go on killing.

Well, I genuinely look forward to seeing what evidence you have of that.

You seem to think that if he went on killing, he must have done so employing the exact same MO as in the Ripper series. I disagree with that - I think he could well have been done with the ripping, perhaps throwing in a less than enthusiastic effort on MacKenzie and then abandoning something that did not give him what he was looking for anymore. That´s just a guess, but a guess that works for me.

I don't think it's a fact that the Ripper must have gone on killing with the same MO. While there are known cases of serial killers changing their techniques, we humans as a species are creatures of habit and a level of consistency can still be identified, especially if one has such a distinct signature like the Ripper did.

And one last thought, to apply your own reasoning: How do we know that Crossmere wasn't investigated by the police? We don't know every suspect that was on the police files. Don't you think the police would've had the common sense to check out the man found with the first victim, who provided them with a false surname?

[Fisherman]

Harry D:
Fair enough. Then, for now, you will have to concede that you cannot show me any evidence that Crossmere continued killing after the Whitechapel murders.

No, Harry: I can but will not do so, that´s the rub. What I very cleary said in my former post is that Lechmere can be placed close to a number of post 1888 murder scenes. How he can be placed there, I won´t disclose, since - as I told you - there is a book being written in which a number of points can be made about these matters. The underlying research is not mine, however, and I have no business giving away something that the book may use.

That's your prerogative, Fisherman. Need I remind you that you're the one here stating with some confidence that Crossmere was the Ripper. At the very least you should be prepared for someone to ask you if or why Crossmere stopped killing.

Prepared? I´m prepared for people asking about his shoe size and preferrred pastimes, but that does not mean that I should be held accountable for not being able to answer it. I have given the grounds for why I suspect him - which is not the same as being certain that he WAS the killer - and I willingly answer questions about him, as far as I can. That is all you can ask, I should think.

Generally speaking, I don't disagree with that. On the other hand, Jack wasn't your average serial killer. He wasn't just going around killing women, he was mutilating them and taking out their organs, be it in public streets, someone's backyard or in the victim's bedroom. On at least one of those occasions he was seconds away from being caught. This depicts a disorganised risk-taker with a violent fetish and a lucky streak. I doubt that the same man who spent the night dissecting MJK beyond all recognition was the type to decide his work was done and call it quits. That wasn't a rational mind at work.

Not rational translates into being unpredictable, Harry. Rational translates into being predictable.
What you are saying is that an unpredictable man should be predicted to act predictably. It pans out poorly, as you may realize.

As such, and as I have said, I myself would have expected the killer to proceed killing. Like I said, I also think he did just that, although in a less flamboyant manner.
I don´t think he was disorganized at all, and I don´t think that everything was down to luck when it comes to his escaping the law. Disorganized killers are sometimes eviscerators, yes. And killing out in the open streets may look disorganized. But it does not have to be!
Take David Carpenter, who killed in national parks, in the close proximity of people who could have seen him - was he disorganized? No. He was totally organized, and took great care not to leave any trail behind him.
Killing out in the open may be disorganized, but it may also be a choice, led on by either a wish to haighten the thrill or by sheer necessity - it could have been the only possibility that was left to the killer.
And eviscerating? Yes, it can be disorganized - but it need not be. Take Arthur Shawcross, who enjoyed eviscerating. Was HE disorganised? No, he was not. He was very organised, and he too took care not to leave any trail behind him.

Now we have looked at three parameters: evisceration, killing in the open streets and leaving trails. Out of these three parameters, I would say that it is only the latter that can point decisevely in one direction - that of an organised killer.
And how much of a trail did the Ripper leave? Nothing at all. No murder weapons left behind, no blood trails, no footprints, no nothing.

I sometimes speak of the back door of 29 Hanbury Street as a good example of why we should look for an organised killer. It was a door that was hinged in a manner that made it close itself. Once you´d pushed it open and passed through it, it would swing back and close again.

Where is the information about bloodied palm- or fingerprints on that door? Answer: It is not there. So we may conclude that the door was free from blood (the police sought for any blood in the yard with great zeal).

How could that be? Well, it could owe to a number of things:

The killer may have avoided getting blood on his hands or he may have wiped his hands before grabbing the door - organised.

The killer may have opened the door with his foot when leaving - organised.

The killer may have jammed the door open when entering the yard, only to kick the jamming feature away as he left - improbable but neverhteless very organised.

The point is that a disorganised killer would arguably have dived, dolphinstyle, into Chapman and he would have gotten blood all over his hands. Then, when he left, he would not have pondered staying away from leaving palm- or fingerprints on the door, since that would have made him an organised killer. He would have grabbed the door and set off blood on it, and the police would have found it and reported it.

There´s more to say on the organised/disorganised bit, but I think this should be an eye-opener.

Well, I genuinely look forward to seeing what evidence you have of that.

I have no proof at all - but as I said, Lechmere can be placed close to a number of post 1888 murder sites.

I don't think it's a fact that the Ripper must have gone on killing with the same MO. While there are known cases of serial killers changing their techniques, we humans as a species are creatures of habit and a level of consistency can still be identified, especially if one has such a distinct signature like the Ripper did.

And one last thought, to apply your own reasoning: How do we know that Crossmere wasn't investigated by the police? We don't know every suspect that was on the police files. Don't you think the police would've had the common sense to check out the man found with the first victim, who provided them with a false surname?

Then why didn´t they get his TRUE surname, and use it in the files, Harry? That question MUST be answered before it could be accepted that he was thoroughly investigated.
Of course they asked him a lot of questions as he arrived, I think we must accept that - but to me, the salient point is that we can combine the lack of the name Lechmere in the police files with our knowledge that he had come forward out of his own free will, not once but TWICE to speak to the police. They would have been much impressed and very thankful, they would have noted how he differed from Paul, and they would have seen a grey, inconspicious-looking brit, a confessed family father and a man who had held down a steady job for more that twenty years. He would have been everything they were NOT looking for.

But even if he had been a foreigner with a malicious-looking face and a weasing voice, I still think that his having come forward twice of his own free will, seemingly to help out, the police would be very inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt.
To them, he had three things going for him:

1. He saw the need to take a look at Nichols, arguably with the intent to help - good citizen.

2. He contacted and spoke to Mizen, informing him about the deed - good citizen. Killers do not inform the police about where to find their victims, they flee and they hide.

3. He even came forward once more, when it was called for, to help out with whatever questions the inquest had to ask - good citizen. A killer would not do that.

He made it all work for him if he was the killer. And that´s a very clever thing to do. If he had not walked away with Paul, contactin Mizen, and if he had not come to the inquest, then how would the police have looked at him if they bought Pauls story in the papers (ironaically, they didn´t, but Lechmere couldn´t bank on that)? Very differently, I would suggest!

They would not know who he was, so he would not have the family father/loyal worker going for him.

The would not know how long he had been standing by the body - it was only he himself that provided that 40 yard distance to Paul, thus laying down a very short interval.

They would not have a man that had proven himself a good citizen, by helping the police, but instead a man from the murder spot - who vanished into thin air.

They would be left with a shady figure that had been found standing by the victims side, and who seemingly fled afterwards. They would be left with a man they reasonably would argue was the probable killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[RockySullivan]

Wasn't the Torso killer also dumping bodies in the river? I don't have a problem with MO differences as these could be explained by inconsistent access to a secure private location, but I do have a problem with the signature. If the Torso killer was Jack, I'd expect his body dumps to be such as to maximize shock value.

The torso killer dumped a torso in new Scotland Yard. That surely shocked the hell out of the police atleast don't you think?

[GUT]

One thing you can't fault Fish for is hs willingness to discuss his suspect.


I just wish he had some DNA and bits of cloth.

[Kaz]

Just watched the channel 5 documentary on lechmere, looks like a good candidate for JTR to me.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Kaz

I think he's certainly a legitimate person of interest, but that's about it...

All the best

Dave

[Harry D]

Just watched the channel 5 documentary on lechmere, looks like a good candidate for JTR to me.

http://youtu.be/_JUCfX1P1ik

[Kaz]

Hi Kaz

I think he's certainly a legitimate person of interest, but that's about it...

All the best

Dave

Well, the programme put forward a very strong case (unless it was all lies). Look forward to the book.

[Elias]

Well, the programme put forward a very strong case (unless it was all lies). Look forward to the book.

Agreed, it was quite a compelling argument that was put forward - I remember being struck early on when first reading some of the Ripper literature how it just seemed to be accepted that Cross' version of events was gospel, even though he's the only individual we can definitely say was found alone with one of the victims close to the time of death. If I remember right, even Sugden's brilliant book uses Cross' story to begin the chapter on this murder seemingly without doubting it for a moment.

There are still though questions to be answered, most obviously why did he stop at MJK? The end of the documentary seemed to hint that they don't believe he did.

I'm also always a bit suspicious of the geo-profiling that's used on suspects. I know it's a widely used modern method but surely, given the crowded, tight-knit community Whitechapel was, you could single out just about anyone who lived in the area at the time and find links to the scenes through family, work etc?