Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Hello Christer


The scoring and cuts of skin on pubis were caused through the endeavour to pass the obstruction caused by the tight fitting clothing over the abdomen. The clothing was fastened round the body somewhat tightly and only could be raised so as to expose about one-third of the abdomen. MEPO 3/140 ff 263-71

This is PC Andrews, the man who actually found her, answering the coroner at the inquest:


[Coroner] Where [sic] her clothes up? - Yes, almost level to the chin. Her legs and body were exposed. I noticed that blood was running from the left side of the neck.
[Coroner] You said you felt her? - I touched the abdomen. It was quite warm.

The clothes were up - check.
He was able to feel her abdomen for warmth - check.

Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on.Daily Tel 4th Sept 88

The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right."
Daily News 4th Sept 88

Right, Jon - I am now going to ask you to look at what MIZEN said about how he was informed about what was the matter with the woman in the street. Lechmere - for it is him, surprise, surprise - states that he informed Mizen about the severity of the errand, but Mizen only says that the carman said A/That there was a woman lying in Buck´s Row, and B/That the errand was being tended to by another PC, who had requested the carmen to find him a colleague.

There you are - that´s the explanation to why Mizen finished knocking up a person, and why he did not run for Buck´s Row. It is always the reaction to the message we must look upon, for in it, we can find what was told and what was not. If the carman had said :We found a woman lying in Buck´s Row, and I don´t know what´s the matter with herbut I think she could be dead!", then Mizen would have rushed.

When Paul noticed Cross in the middle of the road, that`s when Cross was approaching the body. He certainly wasn`t seen retreating from the body, looking like he was concealing a knife or wiping his hands.

Free fantasies on your behalf, Jon. Paul said in the interview that: "I saw a man standing where the woman was."

Standing - not moving or approaching.

Paul confirms this at the inquest: "...as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road."

Nobody says that he was retreating - although he himself says in two papers "I stepped back", when speaking about Pauls arrival.

No, they `re innocent until proven guilty, or, they remain a witness until facts propel them towards being a suspect.

Wrong - they are suspect until cleared. That does not mean that they are not innocent until proven guilty, but they are suspects nevertheless.

....or maybe not, but you are not allowing for the fact that it was 3.30 in the morning and many people trudging to work in the gloom are not as alert or attentive as you apparently are.

What do you mean I am not allowing for it being 3.30? Of course I "allow" for it, but it does not mean that I automatically accept that Paul was tired! He was late, and I know how I react when I wake up, look at the clock and realize that I am late for work - it snaps me wide awake in two seconds flat. The fact that not everyboy are alert is neither here nor there, since we can´t tell what Paul was about in this respect.
Nice try with "trudging", by the way - but let´s say "hurrying" instead, since that was what Paul was.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

you will have to come up with an explanation for your instance in still choosing to call him Cross.

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

[GUT]

GUT
If you believe the police did go to Pickfords and Lechmere’s home address then you will have to come up with an explanation for your instance in still choosing to call him Cross.

That bits simple because it is the name he chose to use himself and to suggest that Mizen knew he was being less than honest to but the police didn't make inquiries just doesn't work.

[Lechmere]

Rosella
They thought it as the third murder not the first – hence ‘heightened alert’.

Harry D
I agree whoever killed the C5 was a skilled murderer, which is one reason why I think he didn’t start with Nichols but had killed before – and also carried on after.
I don’t think the murders abruptly stopped. A key point you repeatedly overlook.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘rounds’ but Harold Shipman killed on his rounds. As did Beverly Allit.
Someone had to find the body. That someone didn’t have to tell the police a false name. That person didn’t have to bluff his way past a policeman moments after. That person didn’t have to be seen by the body before he had raised the alarm. (Caps lock off)

Frank O
The police rubbished the Lloyds story on the Sunday evening it appeared. Seemingly without double checking with Mizen who was from a different Division.
Mizen’s opportunities to corroborate with Neil what had happened would have been limited by this factor.
Beat policeman are trained to be sure what people tell them and they have notebooks to record things in.

Dr Strange
I am unaware of any facts missed out by Westbourne Wink on the Mizen-Lechmere discourse.
He may have skipped ‘elements’ thrown in by people desperate to believe Lechmere over the exemplary policeman at all costs.

GUT
If you believe the police did go to Pickfords and Lechmere’s home address then you will have to come up with an explanation for your instance in still choosing to call him Cross.

[Steve S]

People lie, or are "Economical with the truth" for all sorts of reasons......My problem with the majority of suspects is....WHY?......If there is a record of violence and/or mental instability, that's fine....Anyone else is just "They could have"..........

[GUT]

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

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.

[drstrange169]

Hello Westbourne Wink,

"You COULD ignore all these very powerful facts and claim that PC Mizen suddenly turned into the most negligent police officer of all time ... or you could except his word, and he is very clear, that he was lied to.
I know which one I think makes sense."

Or you could read through the old posts on various threads where this has been discussed in much greater detail. Your synopsis leaves out crucial elements that open the argument significantly wider.

Ultimately what "makes sense" is down to the individual.

[FrankO]

And we are meant to believe this was because he was all because he was negligent??

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

[Harry D]

to do WHAT? Perform surgery? There is zero evidence that the Ripper had any knowledge at all about butchery.

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!

he was a total nutter, and he would not have been able to kill these victims undetected. Furthermore, most serialists are NOT mentally unhinged, but instead fit to plea. Levy was not.

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.

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 it MUST have been Issenschmid. Or Lechmere, who walked the streets EVERY night, walking to his job.

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

was connected to one of the witnesses - how is that damning?

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.

Then tell him that ANOTHER man was found alone with one of the murder victims, and that we cannot be sure how long time he had spent with theat victim.

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

[Rosella]

Why were the police on 'heightened alert' if this was the first murder of the series? Neither Paul nor Cross could properly see the injuries on Nichols in the gloom. They didn't know she was a murder victim.

Cross/Lechmere probably did lie. He may very well have thought "I'm late for work already! If I say there's a policeman there already he won't insist on me going back to the woman with him." Callous, but understandable.

Who knows, in that sort of locale both Mizen and Neill (until he saw the injuries by the light of his lamp) probably thought 'Drunk' or 'Suicide' or 'Vagrant death' at first. We are looking at things very much with the benefit of hindsight.

[Westbourne Wink]

What I find most perplexing is how ready everyone is to say PC Mizen lied so as to dismiss that Lechmere lied.

PC Mizen served for 20 years and had an exemplary record.

Now we're meant to be believe he started making up crucial lies about key witnesses in the heat of manhunt for a brutal serial killer - all so he could hide the fact he was knocking up, for a minute... and it was a minute at most because he did make his way to the scene and was there very shortly after PC Neil.

No, it's much more likely any knocking up he did would have been purely because he'd been mis-sold the situation by Lechmere.

PC Mizen can be a good, ordinary, bad, terrible policeman, it doesn't actually matter - any policeman, good or bad, that is told there was an unattended murder would react very differently to Mizen.

He would have stopped the two men, made them show him where it was and raised the alarm with some urgency. Instead, he strolls there.

And we are meant to believe this was because he was all because he was negligent??

The police were on heightened alert and a murder was a big deal, then, now and always. If Lechmere had told him the truth we'd have surely seen a very different reaction from PC Mizen.

Come the first day of the inquest PC Neil still thinks he had found the body. Do you not think that is a little strange seeing as PC Mizen and PC Neil saw each other on the night?? Do you not think that is a glaring piece of evidence that PC Mizen was lied to by Lechmere and told a policeman was already there - hence why he never corrected PC Neil?

You COULD ignore all these very powerful facts and claim that PC Mizen suddenly turned into the most negligent police officer of all time and ignored an urgent murder scene in favour of knocking up - or you could except his word, and he is very clear, that he was lied to.

I know which one I think makes sense.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Christer.

"Then it MUST have been Isenschmid."

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

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hello Christer

Jon! I won´t waste what little time I have left this evening by answering all points - Malmö FF are due to play Atletico Madrid tonight, and that is more important to somebody born and bred in Malmö.

How did Malmo get on ?

Alice McKenzie ?
"Blood flowed from two stabs in the left side of her neck and her skirts had been lifted, revealing blood across her abdomen, which had been mutilated."

The scoring and cuts of skin on pubis were caused through the endeavour to pass the obstruction caused by the tight fitting clothing over the abdomen. The clothing was fastened round the body somewhat tightly and only could be raised so as to expose about one-third of the abdomen. MEPO 3/140 ff 263-71

Didn`t one of them tell Mizen she was drunk or dead ?
Have a look and see if you can find it, Jon! You may be surprised. If you are wrong, correct your stance accordingly, please!

Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on.Daily Tel 4th Sept 88

The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right."
Daily News 4th Sept 88

He was seen approaching the body.
I would need to see the evidence for that, unless you mean that Paul kept his eyes open as the two crossed the street together.

When Paul noticed Cross in the middle of the road, that`s when Cross was approaching the body. He certainly wasn`t seen retreating from the body, looking like he was concealing a knife or wiping his hands.

Do you consider people being found alone nearby murder victims as suspects until otherwise proven?.

No, they `re innocent until proven guilty, or, they remain a witness until facts propel them towards being a suspect.

Used to do that shift myself, and no matter how much sleep I got, getting up at 3am in the dark is ****, and I was half asleep, even when I was late.
So that means that Paul must have been the same? Or??.

....or maybe not, but you are not allowing for the fact that it was 3.30 in the morning and many people trudging to work in the gloom are not as alert or attentive as you apparently are.

[Hatchett]

Yes, I did.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

What you are talking about is not evidence at all!

Lechemere gave a wrong name. So what?

There has to be someone to find a body. Considering that all the victims were found by someone does that mean that are five, six, seven, eight killers?

I accept your right to have a suspect, but you have to aceept that I or anyone can disagree with you suspect ... because at the end of the day at present there is no evidence against anyone.

But I would say that people who were interviewed with the Police have to be the least likely.

Did you read post 113? No, you did not.

Nighty, night!
Fisherman