Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Lechmere]

Did he immediately misremember and so carried on knocking up?
Had ge misremembered by the time he reached Neil?

[Abby Normal]

Westbourne Wink has it right, Frank.

Let me walk you through it.

On the first day of the inquest (1:st of September), Neil said that he was the one who found the body, and he did not mention the carmen.

On a "press conference" on the 2:nd, mentioned in the papers of the 3:rd, Neil says - rather irritaded - that it is NOT true that he was shown to the body by two men.
Obviously, these men are Lechmere and Paul, and equally obviously, what has brought about Neil countering the proposition is the interview Paul gave.

In it, Paul said that he directed a PC (Mizen) to Buckīs Row.

It is apparent that the questions put to Neil are lead on by a suspicion that he could have been the PC Paul spoke to - which of course he was not.

So! What Neil says is that he was the sole finder of the body.

Now, take Mizen and his role! Letīs make two assumptions, and letīs play out the credible scenario that would evolve for each assumption!

Assumption 1: The carman lied to Mizen. He said that there was a woman lying in the street in Buckīs Row, but he did not say that it was potentially very serious. He added that there was another PC in place, and that this PC had requested the carmen to go for help.

What would Mizen do if this was the case?

Well, he would not feel pressed for time, since there was already a PC in place in Buckīs Row. He could well knock up the odd customer or two before he walked off for Buckīs Row. Incidentally, we know that this is exactly what happened.
Then, when he saw Neil, he would have reasoned "Ah, thereīs the PC the carman spoke of".
Would he ask "Are you the PC the carman spoke of?" No, that would be outright stupid. It was obvious to him that this was so.

When Mizen read about the first inquest day, he would read about Neil talking about how he found the body. He would not be perplexed about Neil taking on that role and not mentioning the two carmen, since they were not of importance to the investigation, and they were not the ones who had found the body - Neil had, and then the carmen had arrived, and Neil had sent them on to him.

It all adds up - if Lechmere lied.

When Mizen read the article from the press conference, it would be much the same: Neil said that it was not true that the two men had shown him to the body, and to Mizen, that was a confirmation of what he already knew: Neil had found the body, and then the carmen arrived.
If the carmen had shown Neil to the body, he would never have let them go and look for Mizen!

It all adds up - if Lechmere lied.

Assumption 1: The carman was honest, and told things as it was.

What would that mean? It would mean that Mizen was told that the woman was perhaps dead or dying, and that the carmen had found the body and left it in Buckīs Row, and nobody else had been involved.

What would Mizen do in such a case?

He would run off immediately to tend to the woman in Buckīs Row, who could be in dire need of attention.

What would he do when he read what Neil said at the inquest? Well, he would immediately realize that Neil had failed to see that he was NOT the first person to find the body - the carmen were. And so Mizen would need to approach his superiors and tell the story as it was.

And if Mizen did not do that on the 1:st, then he would need to do so when he saaw that Neil stuck to his story at the "press conference", claining that he was the first to find the body.

But Mizen never approaches his superiors and tells them that the carmen were the first to find the body!

And why?

Because, of course, Mizen had been told that there was a PC in place in Buckīs Row. And that meant that the story Neil told was in line with the truth, the way Mizen saw things.

Of course, it was NOT the truth, since Mizen had been lied to.

This is how the set of events must be read. It is the only way in which Mizens reactions to what he was told fits.

So, in retrospect, I think it is more or less proven that Mizen told the truth at the inquest, whereas Lechmere lied.

I also think that this goes a very long way to tell us that Charles Lechmere was the man who killed Polly Nichols, and - by extension - the rest of the victims too.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi fish
I think you left out a very possible scenario.

Mizen misremembered what lech told him, because when he got to the body neil was already there. In my mind a simple mistake.

And that's why he doesn't make a big stink about it-because he realized he could have misrembered.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
Bummer! I was hoping you would get into this a little more.

Are you saving it for the book? ; )

You and lech are writing a book right?
(im actually serious about this-and if you are im telling you now I would buy it)

Edward is writing a book.
I may be writing another book, but that is no certain thing.
We are not writing any book together.

I do not wich to go into too many matters in the ongoing discussion. I think that the part presented by Westbourne Wink, and fleshed out by yours truly in post 268 is what we should concentate on right now. The reason is that it takes us very close to a certainty that Lechmrfe lied his way past Mizen. That in itīs turn means that we have a very fair case for him being the killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yes, it`s in the papers, but he`s not referred to as Wetzel in the police reports, although they obviously knew that was his full name

Was it his full name, or was Wetzel an alias, as claimed in the Pall Mall Gazette? Under which name was he listed officially?

We do know that he was named Charles Ludwig, at least.

And we do know that the carman was NOT named Charles Cross.

And in the end, maybe we need to move with the overwhelming majority of the cases - people with an alias are named by their right names by the police and the alias is added.

The fact that we may find tiny loopholes and exceptions to rules (not that I am saying this applies to Ludwig) does not mean that we should wave farewell to all logic.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

What do you know of Lechmereīs experience?

What do you? There's no evidence that Lechmere had the necessary knowledge for the mutilations, therefore why should anyone of us jump to the conclusion that he did?

Why would I trust your assessment of the level of skill needed, when contemporary doctors said that it did not take any knowledge at all, not even one of crude butchery?

George Bagster Phillips believed the killer possessed anatomical skill? To cleanly eviscerate Chapman within ten minutes, in those conditions, was indubitably the mark of a skilled hand. Not some carman fumbling in the dark. :P

Levy has nothing going for him, full story. There is not a shred of evidence tying him to the Whitechapel killings.

Apart from means, motive and opportunity, that is.

What links Crossmere to the murders? Oh, he found the first body. Big whoop. Someone had to. Oh, and he gave an alias that in no way helped shield his identity as he was still called to inquest. If Crossmere was this evil genius that you purport him to be, why wouldn't he give a completely bogus name rather than just his real name but with his stepfather's surname swapped in?

Then Dennis Rader never existed. Then all of the unsolved serial killings - and they are around in huge numbers - have had perpetrators who were uncapacitated to go on killing.

Then Richard Chase never existed, then Son of Sam never existed. Both of them were paranoid schizophrenics, which allegedly puts Levy out of the picture. You seem to like citing precedent but only when it suits. Case in point, there are exceptional cases where a serial killer will stop of his own accord but in the main they need to be stopped. You're deluding yourself if you think the guy who completely butchered Mary Kelly returned to a normal life afterwards.

[Westbourne Wink]

Well this is refreshing! I didn't realise that there is now a school of thought that accepts Lechmere lied to Mizen BUT... wait for it...

There was a perfectly innocent explanation for misleading a police officer about the situation with a dead woman.

Of course - that's a much more reasonable conclusion than that he was lying for a not so innocent reason! We are working hard to refute all allegations against Lechmere. It's almost like you'll do anything to deny it.

There is no logic to saying it was an 'innocent' lie. None. Everything that proceeds Lechmere's meeting with Mizen doesn't fit with it, that's very obvious.
And frankly, you don't innocently lie about a death to a policeman.

In terms of this idea that if PC Mizen was telling the truth then it would have been impossible for Lechmere to get away with standing by his lie at the inquest. I don't agree.

PC Mizen took the stand first - which was to Lechmere's advantage (who slopes in wearing his work clothes whilst he is giving his evidence). Mizen, being a serving police officer, would have been required to get back on his beat once he'd given his statement.

Anyway, whether he was there or not, a juryman is clearly troubled enough by it to question Lechmere about it. But it's very important to remember an inquest is not a trial and witnesses are not allowed to questioned like suspects.

Besides Lechmere got an 'easy ride' back then because of the same mistakes you're all making now. He's carman, an ordinary guy, just happened to the find the body bla bla bla. You seem to think that if he was guilty it would have been so obvious the police at the time would have definitely spotted it - but the Ripper was not caught, he was not obvious, he was veyr adept at not getting caught.

The police back then, like you, are looking for someone who 'looks like' a murderer. And in doing so, just like them, you are missing the highly suspect character right under your noses.

[Abby Normal]

I wonīt go into this very much, Abby - clearly, Lechmere COULD be responsible for all the attacks, though some are likelier than others.

The catīs meat business his mother ran could well have been run out of her home, but it is not established, as far as I know.

As an aside, there are other facts too, placing Lechmere in close contact with meat, knives and butchery.

His son ran his cats meat business from Broadway market, but thatīs later on.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Bummer! I was hoping you would get into this a little more.

Are you saving it for the book? ; )

You and lech are writing a book right?
(im actually serious about this-and if you are im telling you now I would buy it)

[Jon Guy]

From the Pall Mall Gazette:

"... the German, named Charles Ludwig, alias Wetzel..."

If Wetzel was an alias, then the police had him by his correct name.

The police never had Lechmere by HIS correct name.

The best,
Fisherman

Yes, it`s in the papers, but he`s not referred to as Wetzel in the police reports, although they obviously knew that was his full name

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish lech

Whats your take on Lech re the attacks on:

Millwood
ada Wilson
emma smith
Tabram
Mckenzie
coles

Do you think he could be responsible for any and if so, how does their location and timing jibe with lech.


Also, you have said that you suspect that lech might be responsible for the Pinchin st torso. (due to its near his mothers I believe?)

Deb arif has shown that all the torso victims had abdominal mutilations, including Pinchin, which could tie them not only together for a single killer but also to the ripper murders.

Whats your take on the possibility that lech could be responsible for some/all of the torso murders?

--what Im getting at here with the torsos is his/family involvement with the cats meet business and the places of business it was operated from. certainly a viable place as a bolt hole and a place where one could conceiveably murder, mutilate and cut up (to facilitate easy removal from said place)a human body in private.

Where were these cats meats businesses and whats their viability to be used for above ?

I wonīt go into this very much, Abby - clearly, Lechmere COULD be responsible for all the attacks, though some are likelier than others.

The catīs meat business his mother ran could well have been run out of her home, but it is not established, as far as I know.

As an aside, there are other facts too, placing Lechmere in close contact with meat, knives and butchery.

His son ran his cats meat business from Broadway market, but thatīs later on.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Didn`t the police refer to Charles Ludwig Wetzel as Charles Ludwig, even though it is noted that Abberline knew him as Wetzel ?

From the Pall Mall Gazette:

"... the German, named Charles Ludwig, alias Wetzel..."

If Wetzel was an alias, then the police had him by his correct name.

The police never had Lechmere by HIS correct name.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

G'day Frank

And some would have us believe that with all that the police didn't even go to Pickfords and Cross' address and make inquiries.

So explain to "some" why the didnīt get his true name.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Westbourne Wink,

OK, let’s suppose Mizen was telling the truth at the inquest in that Cross lied to him and didn’t inform him that the woman was dead.

The fact that, at the inquest, Mizen claimed that Cross hadn’t mentioned anything about a murder or suicide supports this. Why did he specifically mention this? Because apparently Mizen would have expected the 2 carmen to tell him something like that had they actually been sent by PC Neil.

So, he must have been surprised when he discovered that the woman’s throat had been cut. One might expect him to have at least wondered why the 2 carmen hadn’t spoken of murder or suicide if they had actually been sent by PC Neil. And perhaps check with Neil (where there’s a will, there’s a way), but he didn’t.

We have no way of knowing when Mizen learned that Neil in fact hadn’t sent the 2 carmen his way, but we do know that he would have had confirmation of this reading the Lloyds Weekly News of Sunday 2 September or even the Morning Advertiser of 3 September, before he went to the inquest, which was resumed at 10 am on that morning. If he learned about this, he didn’t act upon it. Even though, by then, he would have known that Cross lied to him.

And after hearing Cross contradict important parts of his own inquest statement, when Mizen knew for a fact that Cross had lied to him and that this man had been found close by the body by this other carman, he still did nothing.

The way I see it is that there are 2 possible reasons for this. Mizen was either gravely negligent or he just wasn’t sure at all about what Cross had and hadn’t told him exactly. And if he wasn’t sure, then why should we? After all, Mizen was there and we were not.

I hope you can see that things aren’t as straight-forward as one would hope or as some sometimes present them.

All the best,
Frank

Westbourne Wink has it right, Frank.

Let me walk you through it.

On the first day of the inquest (1:st of September), Neil said that he was the one who found the body, and he did not mention the carmen.

On a "press conference" on the 2:nd, mentioned in the papers of the 3:rd, Neil says - rather irritaded - that it is NOT true that he was shown to the body by two men.
Obviously, these men are Lechmere and Paul, and equally obviously, what has brought about Neil countering the proposition is the interview Paul gave.

In it, Paul said that he directed a PC (Mizen) to Buckīs Row.

It is apparent that the questions put to Neil are lead on by a suspicion that he could have been the PC Paul spoke to - which of course he was not.

So! What Neil says is that he was the sole finder of the body.

Now, take Mizen and his role! Letīs make two assumptions, and letīs play out the credible scenario that would evolve for each assumption!

Assumption 1: The carman lied to Mizen. He said that there was a woman lying in the street in Buckīs Row, but he did not say that it was potentially very serious. He added that there was another PC in place, and that this PC had requested the carmen to go for help.

What would Mizen do if this was the case?

Well, he would not feel pressed for time, since there was already a PC in place in Buckīs Row. He could well knock up the odd customer or two before he walked off for Buckīs Row. Incidentally, we know that this is exactly what happened.
Then, when he saw Neil, he would have reasoned "Ah, thereīs the PC the carman spoke of".
Would he ask "Are you the PC the carman spoke of?" No, that would be outright stupid. It was obvious to him that this was so.

When Mizen read about the first inquest day, he would read about Neil talking about how he found the body. He would not be perplexed about Neil taking on that role and not mentioning the two carmen, since they were not of importance to the investigation, and they were not the ones who had found the body - Neil had, and then the carmen had arrived, and Neil had sent them on to him.

It all adds up - if Lechmere lied.

When Mizen read the article from the press conference, it would be much the same: Neil said that it was not true that the two men had shown him to the body, and to Mizen, that was a confirmation of what he already knew: Neil had found the body, and then the carmen arrived.
If the carmen had shown Neil to the body, he would never have let them go and look for Mizen!

It all adds up - if Lechmere lied.

Assumption 1: The carman was honest, and told things as it was.

What would that mean? It would mean that Mizen was told that the woman was perhaps dead or dying, and that the carmen had found the body and left it in Buckīs Row, and nobody else had been involved.

What would Mizen do in such a case?

He would run off immediately to tend to the woman in Buckīs Row, who could be in dire need of attention.

What would he do when he read what Neil said at the inquest? Well, he would immediately realize that Neil had failed to see that he was NOT the first person to find the body - the carmen were. And so Mizen would need to approach his superiors and tell the story as it was.

And if Mizen did not do that on the 1:st, then he would need to do so when he saaw that Neil stuck to his story at the "press conference", claining that he was the first to find the body.

But Mizen never approaches his superiors and tells them that the carmen were the first to find the body!

And why?

Because, of course, Mizen had been told that there was a PC in place in Buckīs Row. And that meant that the story Neil told was in line with the truth, the way Mizen saw things.

Of course, it was NOT the truth, since Mizen had been lied to.

This is how the set of events must be read. It is the only way in which Mizens reactions to what he was told fits.

So, in retrospect, I think it is more or less proven that Mizen told the truth at the inquest, whereas Lechmere lied.

I also think that this goes a very long way to tell us that Charles Lechmere was the man who killed Polly Nichols, and - by extension - the rest of the victims too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fish lech

Whats your take on Lech re the attacks on:

Millwood
ada Wilson
emma smith
Tabram
Mckenzie
coles

Do you think he could be responsible for any and if so, how does their location and timing jibe with lech.


Also, you have said that you suspect that lech might be responsible for the Pinchin st torso. (due to its near his mothers I believe?)

Deb arif has shown that all the torso victims had abdominal mutilations, including Pinchin, which could tie them not only together for a single killer but also to the ripper murders.

Whats your take on the possibility that lech could be responsible for some/all of the torso murders?

--what Im getting at here with the torsos is his/family involvement with the cats meet business and the places of business it was operated from. certainly a viable place as a bolt hole and a place where one could conceiveably murder, mutilate and cut up (to facilitate easy removal from said place)a human body in private.

Where were these cats meats businesses and whats their viability to be used for above ?

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Whoever killed Nichols, Chapman, Stride & Eddowes was a skilled murderer, he knew how to incapacitate his prey and dispatch them quickly and cleanly, and in the case of Chapman & Eddowes eviscerate them without damaging the other internal organs, in the dark, with time against him. The argument that a layman with no such experience such as Crossmere could've pulled it off is laughable. ...Ha!

What do you know of Lechmereīs experience? Why would I trust your assessment of the level of skill needed, when contemporary doctors said that it did not take any knowledge at all, not even one of crude butchery?

There is very good reason to believe that Lechmere had a lot of experience of handling meat and knives, but there is little need to accept that the killer MUST have been experienced in these matters.

Levy was not a "total nutter", at least not in 1888. If he was, it wouldn't have taken two years until he was sent to the asylum.

Levy has nothing going for him, full story. There is not a shred of evidence tying him to the Whitechapel killings.

Something has to explain the sudden explosion of violence in the Autumn of 1888, and the reason why it either abruptly stopped or de-escalated (if you want to include McKenzie & Coles). We have an explanation for Levy, he was sent to the madhouse around that time. We have no such justification for Crossmere. He seems to have lived out a fairly mundane life after that. It's a key point, and one which you conveniently overlook, which only serves to expose your theory for the non-starter that it is.

Then Dennis Rader never existed. Then all of the unsolved serial killings - and they are around in huge numbers - have had perpetrators who were uncapacitated to go on killing.
People tell me that I am stupid for thinking that Lechmere would have not stopped after Nichols. They say that he would never go on killing shortly afterwards, for the risk of getting revealed.
They apparently think he could control it by himself, choosing if he was to kill or not.
Then thereīs those who say he must have gone on (like you).
Both have it wrong - many serialists have killed in the face of danger of getting caught and close in time to their former victims, and many serialists have either stopped killing or made long pauses.
Some serialists have altered their methods of killing. Some have done so by first employing one method, and then they have switched to another. Some have used varying methods all the time, mixing them up as they go along.
Lechmere may well have continued killing, changing his method.

Once again, ignorance shows itself in the fact that the same people who say that he would have stuck to eviscerating, and who claim that the fact that there are no further evisceration killings tells us that he stopped, are also the people who say that Nichols could not have been the first victim.

Aha - so he killed in another fashion BEFORE, but he could NOT have done so after...? Brilliant.

Since you like to cite precedent, how many known serial killers have murdered on their rounds?

How many have murdered by flying their victims to a remote place, subsequently hunting them down in the wilderness and killing them?
One.

How many have murdered by feigning having a plaster cast on their arm?
One.

How many have murdered by travelling to their victims on warships?
One.

It would be ignorant in the extreme not to acknowledge that serial killers may kill in different manners, employing different tactics and using different windows of opportunity. The perceived drawback of killing en route to work is a drawback designed and fashioned for the simple reason that there is nothing else to go for when it comes to Lechmere.
Itīs the same with the "he was a kindly family man" ploy.
Itīs the same with the he "couldnīt have switched MO:s" ploy.

Totally disingenuous, all of it.

Joseph Levy has been described as 'evasive' and having something to hide. It's possible that the man he saw with Eddowes that night was an acquaintance of his, daresay a relative? That's not proven, obviously, but it's certainly a viable connection to the case.

No, itīs no connection at all - it is a suggestion, "bolstered" by something thrown forward by a journalist who wanted to sell his paper.

Hey, Fisherman. Guess what? It might have escaped your notice, but SOMEONE HAD TO FIND THE BODY.

But that somebody did not have to find it at time that puts him in the frame as the killer. That somebody had no need to give a false name to the police. That somebody did not have to con the police on the murder night. That somebody did not have to have all the other murders happan along his treks.

So itīs another disingenuous "argument" on your behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer.

"Then it MUST have been Isenschmid."

Ah! One of your rare gems! You finally got it right.

Cheers.
LC

Yes I did - but it has nothing to do with Issy

Fisherman