Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[FrankO]

It offers a very viable explanation to the question why Lechmere chose not to run: because he judged - correctly - running, not staying put, as the bigger risk.

Come now, Christer, even you can’t know if he judged correctly. Simply because Cross, of course, didn’t run (if he was the Ripper at all).

Cheers,
Frank

[DVV]

Cross didn't run because he had no Reeboks that morning.
But that's off-thread.

[Lechmere]

In September 1888 Abberline stated that he thought that Isenschmid was the most likely suspect and he didn't have medical knowledge.

[DVV]

Maybe the "most likely" (did Abberline word it so, btw ?) among what they had at the time.
As a butcher, Lynn Cates' sweetface possessed some anatomical knowledge and knew how to use a knife.
So we can't take this as an evidence that Abberline disbelieved Phillips - quite the reverse : out of the September suspects, Isenchmid was closer to Phillips' profile than Pizer and Piggott.

Thanks for this, Lechmere.

[Wickerman]

In September 1888 Abberline stated that he thought that Isenschmid was the most likely suspect and he didn't have medical knowledge.

Thankyou Ed.

It is probably worthwhile to point out that Dr Phillips had already given his opinion at the Chapman Inquest on the 13th as to the perceived knowledge of the killer.

[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?
[Phillips] I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract?
[Phillips] I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

It was five days later, the 18th, that Abberline wrote that Isenschmid, "...appears to be the most likely person that has come under our notice to have committed the crimes".

So at least by this date Abberline was not overly influenced by the suggestion of "medical knowledge" of the killer.

[DVV]

Oh Jon, I'm so sorry to see you've posted your comments before reading my reply to Lechmere.
Who raised an interesting point, especially when you look at it remembering the September suspects.

And, humm, weren't they after some medical students at the same time ?

[Wickerman]

Oh Jon, I'm so sorry to see you've posted your comments before reading my reply to Lechmere.
Who raised an interesting point, especially when you look at it remembering the September suspects.

And, humm, weren't they after some medical students at the same time ?

Sorry Dave, but that parallel does not work.
I passed my Butchers exam in the 70's but had no human anatomical experience.

And yes the police were looking for anyone suspicious, students, drovers, loafers, dossers, swells, in fact any male between 16-60.
I thought we were talking about Abberline's personal theory not the direction of the police investigation?

[Fisherman]

Come now, Christer, even you can’t know if he judged correctly. Simply because Cross, of course, didn’t run (if he was the Ripper at all).

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank!

I think you know what I am pointing to, Frank; If Lechmere was the Ripper, then it would seem that he did make the right decision.
Of course, it can - and should - be argued that we cannot regard his decision not to run as any evidence that he WAS the Ripper, that´s fair enough.
But I think the reasoning works on a general level too - running is almost certainly predestined to wake suspicion and calamity, whereas staying put may easily quench that.

After that, we can argue til the cows come home. Or beyond.

In the end, what I reacted to was a suggestion that Lechmere WOULD have run if he was the killer. Experience, history and logic tell us that this is not necessarily so. Not at all, in fact. And least of all if we deal with psychopathic behaviour, which we may well be doing here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You're sad ?

Let me laugh.

Let's put it simple, as everybody can see how confuse you are, resorting to God knows what.

I've said one thing, and only one thing, from the onset : that what we know allows me to speculate that Abberline has probably believed in Dr Jack since 1888. And that that could be one of the reasons why he did not suspect Hutch, although his alibi wasn't an alibi.

Seen ?

And what have you replied to this ?

That I had better say : "It's proven", etc etc, as if my speculation were incredibly far-fetched.

Other reply from Fish : "Oh, but Abberline could have changed his mind".

Really wise.

With that kind of reasoning, I could also argue that the foreigner seen by Mrs Long was actually a Fijian princess. Why not ?

Cheers

This, and this only, is what you have to answer for, David:

"Since Abberline believed in Dr Jack in 1903, the most reasonable guess is that he did NOT believe so in 1888...

Well, at least, that's how some posters are reasoning at tea time."

Until you clear this up, you really don´t have the margin for any wise cracks.

Tell me who these posters are who reason like you suggest.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

In September 1888 Abberline stated that he thought that Isenschmid was the most likely suspect and he didn't have medical knowledge.

Well, at the very least, the suggested conviction on Abberlines behalf that he was dealing with an "expert surgeon" goes out the window.

It´s either that, or Abberline was able to professionally deal with the fact that he could be wrong. In which case he could just as easily have cast Hutchinson in the killers role, had he seen the need to.

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Of course, it can - and should - be argued that we cannot regard his decision not to run as any evidence that he WAS the Ripper, that´s fair enough.
But I think the reasoning works on a general level too - running is almost certainly predestined to wake suspicion and calamity, whereas staying put may easily quench that.

Hi Christer!

As you know, I agree that it’s not evidence that he was the Ripper. For instance, what if an innocent Cross didn’t tell the whole truth and had in fact walked over to the body and discovered that she had been brutally murdered?

He had heard someone approaching when he walked over to the body, but that only became important when he discovered that the woman he first thought to be a tarpaulin was brutally murdered. He couldn’t stay with the body he’d touched for fear of being suspected. Nor could he run for the very reason you’ve outlined.

Excuse the 'off-threadness'.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer!

As you know, I agree that it’s not evidence that he was the Ripper. For instance, what if an innocent Cross didn’t tell the whole truth and had in fact walked over to the body and discovered that she had been brutally murdered?

He had heard someone approaching when he walked over to the body, but that only became important when he discovered that the woman he first thought to be a tarpaulin was brutally murdered. He couldn’t stay with the body he’d touched for fear of being suspected. Nor could he run for the very reason you’ve outlined.

Excuse the 'off-threadness'.

Cheers,
Frank

I am always ready to forgive any "off-threadness" that allows me to discuss Lechmere, you know that, Frank!

The situation you outline is a useful and viable suggestion - taken in isolation. Of course, I don´t think that all people would necessarily think "He´s gonna think I am the killer" in a situation such as this. Normally, I think most people would be upset by what they saw and call other people´s attention to the situation. If nobody arrived, many people would call out for help, knock on doors etcetera, instead of suspecting that they would be cast in the killer´s role.
There is also the matter of the concealed wounds - if Lechmere was innocent and if he did not know that it was a murder, he would not have to fear any misguided consequences on his own behalf.

The more interesting questions with a scenario like this are:

If he was innocent but afraid to get nicked for the killing, why is it that he has the bad luck of having Tabram dying alongside Old Montague at around the time he went to work, Chapman on Hanbury Street at the time he went to work (if we invest in Phillips, at least), Stride close to his mothers and daughters place at a time when he could have payed a visit to them, Eddowes at a time and place that tallied with him taking his old working route from James Street to Broad Street and Kelly getting killed on Dorset Street - a short cut from the Hanbury Street route - at the approximate time of his job trek?

Count the number of East End streets, and then do the math - just how big is the chance that these murders would ALL potentially correspond with his treks? Why is not a single one of them out of his ways?

Why is it that Nichols - as the only eviscerated Ripper victim - has her wounds concealed, and the legs stretched out on the ground, instead of being showcased, leg or legs drawn up?

Why is it that we have Mizen telling us that the carman only spoke of a woman lying in the street, and that he did not say a word about murder or a suicide?

Why is Mizen telling us that the carman said: You are wanted in Buck' s Row by another policeman?

Why did Lechmere call himself Cross when speaking to the police, when we have not a single other of the onehundred (!) plus signatures from Lecherme´s dealings with authorities (apart from the 1861 census listing signature, in all probability filled in by his stepfather) saying Cross?

Why did not Paul hear Lechmere walking in front of him, down Buck´s Row? He was supposedly only 30-40 yards ahead of him, but still he managed to move as quietly as a phantom?

These matters do not go away together with an acceptance that Lechmere simply was afraid to disclose that he had seen that the woman was murdered, if this was what happened.

Each and every one of them craves an explanation - conjecture that absolves Lechmere from being the killer.

We have to reason that the name thing would have been innocent and that he used the name Cross frequently, without having one single recording of it by his own hand.

We have to reason that Paul was not alert enough to hear Lechmere, or that Lechmere wore soft soles - a carman, with a carman´s wages.

We have to reason that Mizen got it all wrong - or lied. Not Lechmere, who we KNOW lied about his real name.

We have to reason that the killer in the Nichols case - but in no other evisceration case - suddenly decided that he preferred to hide her wounds from sight.

And finally, we have to accept that it was just a coincidence that all the murders happened alongside routes that Lechmere had reason to use. When it comes to Tabram, Chapman (if Phillips was on the money) and Kelly, we must accept that Lechmere probably went straight past or relatively close to the murder scenes at the approximate times the women were killed, without having a clue that his life was one of having women killed as he walked by.

If you think that these are trivial matters, not worthy of representing a good case for having found the Ripper, then I just have to disagree. Very much so.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Well, at the very least, the suggested conviction on Abberlines behalf that he was dealing with an "expert surgeon" goes out the window.

Fisherman

Fish,

it's clearly your reply that goes out of the window.
You're implying that I have accused Abberline to have looked exclusively for an expert-surgeon since 1888, and this just shows how easily you lose your head.

Cheers

[DVV]

And yes the police were looking for anyone suspicious, students, drovers, loafers, dossers, swells, in fact any male between 16-60.

Hi Jon,

No, not "students". Specifically medical students.

Cheers

[FrankO]

I am always ready to forgive any "off-threadness" that allows me to discuss Lechmere, you know that, Frank!

Thanks, Fish!

The situation you outline is a useful and viable suggestion - taken in isolation. Of course, I don´t think that all people would necessarily think "He´s gonna think I am the killer" in a situation such as this. Normally, I think most people would be upset by what they saw and call other people´s attention to the situation. If nobody arrived, many people would call out for help, knock on doors etcetera, instead of suspecting that they would be cast in the killer´s role.

I don’t think you got what I meant, Christer. If I were an innocent Cross and I had walked over to the body and gotten blood of the brutally murdered woman on my hands and possibly my clothes while finding out this had been the case, I wouldn’t want to be found right beside the body by this oncomer. Hence, I would have stepped back and waited for him. Perhaps even just to be sure.

There is also the matter of the concealed wounds - if Lechmere was innocent and if he did not know that it was a murder, he would not have to fear any misguided consequences on his own behalf.

What I suggest is that he does know as he did examine the body and that he found her belly uncovered. So, much like Paul did later he may have wanted to give the woman some decency by covering her abdomen. Or, like a guilty Cross, he may not have wanted to have Paul find out that she had been murdered as he didn’t want to get involved (not an uncommon thing back then & there), risking that he would lose a lot of time and he was late for work as it was.

If he was innocent but afraid to get nicked for the killing, why is it that he has the bad luck of having Tabram dying alongside Old Montague at around the time he went to work, Chapman on Hanbury Street at the time he went to work (if we invest in Phillips, at least), Stride close to his mothers and daughters place at a time when he could have payed a visit to them, Eddowes at a time and place that tallied with him taking his old working route from James Street to Broad Street and Kelly getting killed on Dorset Street - a short cut from the Hanbury Street route - at the approximate time of his job trek?

Paul passed Nichols’ and Chapman’s murder sites as well while getting to work and I’m sure there were instances that he passed or was close to the other murder sites. Any innocent man living in the area could have passed more than one of the murder sites and quite probably actually did.

Why is it that Nichols - as the only eviscerated Ripper victim - has her wounds concealed, and the legs stretched out on the ground, instead of being showcased, leg or legs drawn up?

We can’t know if the position of the legs was important to the Ripper or just a practicality or a result of the way he laid his victims down. May have been because it was his first mutilation murder.

Why is it that we have Mizen telling us that the carman only spoke of a woman lying in the street, and that he did not say a word about murder or a suicide?

Because, much like a guilty Cross, he didn’t want him to search him to find freshly smeared blood on his hands and possibly on his clothes. And because he wanted to get to work as he was late. And because he just didn’t want to get involved any more than he had already gotten.

Why is Mizen telling us that the carman said: You are wanted in Buck' s Row by another policeman?

See above.

Why did Lechmere call himself Cross when speaking to the police, when we have not a single other of the onehundred (!) plus signatures from Lecherme´s dealings with authorities (apart from the 1861 census listing signature, in all probability filled in by his stepfather) saying Cross?

Because he didn’t want to be known as a witness in a murder case. He may very well not have been proud of how he'd handled the case (leaving a brutally murdered woman behind and not having been as open about his involvement as he would have wanted). Maybe for this reason he wanted to stick to this name as long as the police let him, and they obviously let him.

Why did not Paul hear Lechmere walking in front of him, down Buck´s Row? He was supposedly only 30-40 yards ahead of him, but still he managed to move as quietly as a phantom?

In my scenario he wasn’t walking 30-40 yards ahead of him, but rather 90-100. Of course, Paul’s own footfalls were much louder for him than Cross’s and he had no particular reason to listen for sounds.

These matters do not go away together with an acceptance that Lechmere simply was afraid to disclose that he had seen that the woman was murdered, if this was what happened.

In my view to an important part they do. To me, the scenario I suggest is much more acceptable than the scenario that you propose, in which you want to have us believe that Cross was in a 'bubble' while he was cutting away at Nichols' body and not hearing a thing until it was too late. Had it not been in Buck's Row, but in any of the other murder sites, I might have bought it.

All the best, Fish!
Frank