Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[drstrange169]

>>Just try to remember to ask about the case, and not about me. I am not the focal point here, other than in your world.<<

Mmmm ... lets check:

Posts #644,645,646,647,648 from me deal with specifics of the case exclusively.

Your reply posts # 650, 651, 653 and 656 are all about me with no reference to the case issues.

On this thread, I've been writing about your 31 point list and you've been writing about me.

So, how about you get back to the actual issues and stop all the insults?


Here's one, Rainbow keeps writing about Xmere standing next to a freshly bleeding body.

If Paul forensically interfered with the body as you are now claiming, how do we know for certain that the blood PC Neil saw was not caused by Paul unsettling pooled blood?

Does Payne James specifically rule that out as a possibility?

Was he asked about alternate scenarios, if so what did he say and if not, why?

[Joshua Rogan]

I must admit I've never understood what the suggested explanation was for Lechmere/Cross giving a supposedly false surname to the police, while giving his correct address.

I've just found Fisherman's scenario, quoted above. But it appears to rely on the idea that he could have refused to give an address when he gave evidence at the inquest. That seems an astonishing suggestion. Has any evidence ever been produced to support this idea?

What I'm asking for is evidence for the extraordinary claim that Lechmere/Cross could have refused to give his address at the inquest.

Because the explanation suggested by Fisherman above relies on the idea that he could have done that. Otherwise, what would have been the point of giving a false surname, but the correct address?

Yes, that's more or less what Fisherman was suggesting in what I quoted above, but it would only work if his address could be kept out of the papers too. So the suggestion was that he had refused to give his address in court.

That's what I'm asking about. Is there any evidence to support the extraordinary claim that he could have refused to give his address in court?

No one, incidentally, has claimed that Lechmere refused to give his address in court. These repetitive ignorant claims are - tiresome. The suggestion is that in the confusion he got away without reading it out.

I'm not sure if this point was ever properly answered, but I have just stumbled across an inquest report that suggests is was indeed possible for a witness to withhold their address in open court, although they had to submit it in writing, and presumably they still had to give it in any police statement.

Times (London)
Tuesday, 20 November 1888
INQUESTS.
Yesterday Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, Coroner for the South-Eastern Division of Middlesex, resumed his adjourned inquiry at the Vestry-hall, High-street, Shadwell, respecting the death of ANNIE HANCOCK, aged 32, lately living at 13, Puross-road, Brixton, whose dead body was found floating in the Thames off Wapping on Friday week, under mysterious circumstances.
Mr. F. E. A. Cavell, solicitor, appeared on behalf of Mr. Frank Pain, and Inspector Reid and Detective Sergeant Francis, Thames Police, watched the case on behalf of the Criminal Investigation Department.
On the last occasion only part evidence of identification was taken, and the finding of the body. The following additional evidence was now given:-
George Hancock, who objected to his private address being made public, and wrote it down for the benefit of the Coroner, said he was a carpenter. He recognized the photograph produced as that of his wife, Annie Hancock. She left witness some ten years ago. Up to the present time they had been married 14 years and two months. He believed the age of deceased was 32, and she was 17 or 18 when they were married. He had not seen her since they separated, but could recognize her from the four photographs produced....
...
Beatrice Williams, who objected to her address being publicly known, stated she was a widow. She recognized the photographs produced as being likenesses of the deceased, whom she knew by the name of Mrs. Nash, and that she lived in Puross-road. On the Monday that deceased was missing witness met her at Charing-cross, and again in the Northumberland publichouse at 25 minutes to 12 the same night. Witness left her there in the company of a gentleman, who was a stranger to witness. Deceased had had a little drink, but knew what she was doing. Witness believed she was in no trouble, and was a woman of most lively disposition. At that time deceased was carrying a small fancy basket, and was wearing a small gold chain, which was attached to her brooch in front. The chain produced was not the one deceased was wearing that night.

[John Wheat]

In other words, any one been found alone in an empty street at an early hour near a freshly bleeding murdered woman, and the policemen hadn't seen a soul before, if he said he just found her, belive him, if he lied about his name, believe him, if he misled a policeman, believe him, he is a random witness and nothing more, till you see him cutting the victim with your both eyes, and you were full conscious, and gave yourself enough time to be sure what the hell you are seeing, also it will be better if you were with a company, because your eyes may fool you in the dark.

other than this, it would be much better and extremely logical to consider him a random witness.

Giving him a hug would not hurt also..



Rainbow°

Yeah as I said Lechmere and Hutchinson two random witnesses.

[GUT]

I'm not sure if this point was ever properly answered, but I have just stumbled across an inquest report that suggests is was indeed possible for a witness to withhold their address in open court, although they had to submit it in writing, and presumably they still had to give it in any police statement.

Times (London)
Tuesday, 20 November 1888
INQUESTS.
Yesterday Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, Coroner for the South-Eastern Division of Middlesex, resumed his adjourned inquiry at the Vestry-hall, High-street, Shadwell, respecting the death of ANNIE HANCOCK, aged 32, lately living at 13, Puross-road, Brixton, whose dead body was found floating in the Thames off Wapping on Friday week, under mysterious circumstances.
Mr. F. E. A. Cavell, solicitor, appeared on behalf of Mr. Frank Pain, and Inspector Reid and Detective Sergeant Francis, Thames Police, watched the case on behalf of the Criminal Investigation Department.
On the last occasion only part evidence of identification was taken, and the finding of the body. The following additional evidence was now given:-
George Hancock, who objected to his private address being made public, and wrote it down for the benefit of the Coroner, said he was a carpenter. He recognized the photograph produced as that of his wife, Annie Hancock. She left witness some ten years ago. Up to the present time they had been married 14 years and two months. He believed the age of deceased was 32, and she was 17 or 18 when they were married. He had not seen her since they separated, but could recognize her from the four photographs produced....
...
Beatrice Williams, who objected to her address being publicly known, stated she was a widow. She recognized the photographs produced as being likenesses of the deceased, whom she knew by the name of Mrs. Nash, and that she lived in Puross-road. On the Monday that deceased was missing witness met her at Charing-cross, and again in the Northumberland publichouse at 25 minutes to 12 the same night. Witness left her there in the company of a gentleman, who was a stranger to witness. Deceased had had a little drink, but knew what she was doing. Witness believed she was in no trouble, and was a woman of most lively disposition. At that time deceased was carrying a small fancy basket, and was wearing a small gold chain, which was attached to her brooch in front. The chain produced was not the one deceased was wearing that night.

And in both cases the press report that it happened, not reported the address.

But in Cross case, they didn't report that he didn't want to give the address, but reported the actual address, now I wonder what that tells us.

[GUT]

In other words, any one been found alone in an empty street at an early hour near a freshly bleeding murdered woman, and the policemen hadn't seen a soul before, if he said he just found her, belive him, if he lied about his name, believe him, if he misled a policeman, believe him, he is a random witness and nothing more, till you see him cutting the victim with your both eyes, and you were full conscious, and gave yourself enough time to be sure what the hell you are seeing, also it will be better if you were with a company, because your eyes may fool you in the dark.

other than this, it would be much better and extremely logical to consider him a random witness.

Giving him a hug would not hurt also..



Rainbow°

But did he "lie" about his name?? Most doubt it.

And

Did he mislead Mizan? Again far from fact.

So if he says he found the body, so what someone found each of them. Let's make Tom Bower the killer he found MJK.

As no two bodies were found by the same person I guess the multi killer theorists win (if they don't anyway).

[John Wheat]

I find it interesting that Hutch is regarded by the voters in the poll as a better suspect than Lechmere. Having said that they're both still witnesses.

[Rainbow]

I find it interesting that Hutch is regarded by the voters in the poll as a better suspect than Lechmere. Having said that they're both still witnesses.

Except that Lechmere had witnessed Nichols while she was dying..

And Lechmere had been cought standing by the victim, but no one can tell if Hutch was even there at the same night or if his story ever took place


Rainbow°

[John Wheat]

Except that Lechmere had witnessed Nichols while she was dying..

And Lechmere had been cought standing by the victim, but no one can tell if Hutch was even there at the same night or if his story ever took place


Rainbow°

But none of that makes Lechmere anything other than a witness.

[MysterySinger]

It is often said that Lechmere gave a "false" name to the Police but how and when is he supposed to have done this? Did Mizen even bother to take down the names of either Lechmere or Paul ?

At the inquest, Mizen talks of car men rather than name. As far I can tell, the first mention of Cross (Charles Andrew) comes from the inquest but here's the thing. From the same inquest, newspaper reports variously give the name of witness Emily Holland as either that or as Jane Oram. She was known by both names. So how come both names get reported?

Could it be that witnesses at the inquest were asked if they were known by any other names as well? So Lechmere could have given both names and, Cross being the easiest to spell or remember was the one mostly picked up on.

Either way, I expect many folks gave aliases with regard to this case, for various reasons. Also, the reports often mis-spell names.

[Fisherman]

MysterySinger: It is often said that Lechmere gave a "false" name to the Police but how and when is he supposed to have done this?

How: By not stating the name he otherwise regularly used in contacts with authorities, which was aslo the name he was registered by and baptized as: Lechmere.
When: As he arrived at the cop shop some days after the murder of Polly Nichols. The exact time is ont established, but much speaks for it being on the evening of the 2:nd of September, Lechmere witnessing on the 3:rd. The Lloyds article appeared on the 2:nd.

Did Mizen even bother to take down the names of either Lechmere or Paul ?

He did not take down the names, no. And it is interesting that you should ask the question in a manner that points Mizen out as lazy and a worthless cop. Please remember that if Mizen accepted that another policeman had sent the carmen to him, then that policeman would have taken the names down if he deemed it necessary. The mere fact that this policeman did NOT detain the carmen at the murder spot goes to show that the implication was that they had arrived at that spot after the body was found by the phantom policeman. So the question should never be "Did Mizen even bother...", but instead "Did Mizen take the names down, and if not, why?"

At the inquest, Mizen talks of car men rather than name. As far I can tell, the first mention of Cross (Charles Andrew) comes from the inquest but here's the thing. From the same inquest, newspaper reports variously give the name of witness Emily Holland as either that or as Jane Oram. She was known by both names. So how come both names get reported?

If both names were reported, then both names were mentioned at the inquest, simple as that. It seems it was the Times who used the name Jane Oram, and I can only surmise that she said something like "My name is Emily Holland, but I also go by the name of Jane Oram", nearly all papers going with the first name, but the Times catching the second name instead.

Could it be that witnesses at the inquest were asked if they were known by any other names as well? So Lechmere could have given both names and, Cross being the easiest to spell or remember was the one mostly picked up on.

The carman reported to the police BEFORE the inquest. At that stage, it was up to the police to establish which name was his real one and which was an alias. They would have entered the real name in their reports, for obvious reasons. This discussion has been rehashed and rehashed and rehashed over they years, and the answer remains the same. There are many, many examples of people who mentioned that they used aliases, and those people are mentione by BOTH names, so there was no habit to facilitate away the registered and real names. This is why we know that they used more than one name - it is taken down and registered.

Either way, I expect many folks gave aliases with regard to this case, for various reasons. Also, the reports often mis-spell names.

Expecting is not good enough. If you have evidence that it happened it´s a lot better. And I find it hard to believe that someone misheard "Lechmere" for "Cross".

[John Wheat]

This false name which the whole case against Lechmere rests on wasn't it ridiculously easy to trace back to Lechmere?

[MrBarnett]

Hi John,

It is now, but in 1888, without the address or local knowledge, very difficult.

Gary

[GUT]

Hi John,

It is now, but in 1888, without the address or local knowledge, very difficult.

Gary

But they had the address, and hisplace of work, and I imagine the police had just a little local knowledge.

[MrBarnett]

'They' being the Met Police who didn't think to knock up the residents of Buck's Row?

[GUT]

'They' being the Met Police who didn't think to knock up the residents of Buck's Row?

I thought you were talking about local knowledge, when you mentioned local knowledge.

But then I'm easily confused.