Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

You could always join Team Tomkins.

Most generous of you, Gary. IŽll say this much - the day I take my hand from Lechmere, if I should decide that keeping up Ripperology would be a clever thing to do, I promise to consider Henry and the Horsefloggers first.

Deal?

[MrBarnett]

Most generous of you, Gary. IŽll say this much - the day I take my hand from Lechmere, if I should decide that keeping up Ripperology would be a clever thing to do, I promise to consider Henry and the Horsefloggers first.

Deal?

Deal.

Did you know we now have a Tomkins descendant looking over the HB stuff over at How's gaff?

[Fisherman]

Deal.

Did you know we now have a Tomkins descendant looking over the HB stuff over at How's gaff?

No, I did not! (...he said, making a mental note to check it out at earliest possible occasion).

[MysterySinger]

Hmmm

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?

FISHERMAN - 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.




MYSTERYSINGER - I don't think you know for a fact what name(s) Cross gave to the Police when he went to make his statement. I do accept the date and time Cross would have gone to the Police Station.


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

FISHERMAN - 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?"


MYSTERYSINGER - So I am correct, Mizen didn't bother to take down any details for either Cross or Paul. Seems a little odd that you assume that my wording is referring to Mizen as a "lazy and worthless cop" when you're suggesting a much bigger failure of the Police in not undertaking a full investigation of Cross as a potential suspect - don't you think?


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?

FISHERMAN - 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.


MYSTERYSINGER - So essentially you agree that it is down to the reporter which name they use and that Cross could have also given another name at the inquest that wasn't put in the papers.



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.

FISHERMAN - 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.



MYSTERYSINGER - Yes the carman must have reported to the Police before the inquest - but can we really state for certainty that he gave no other name than Cross? Please provide a link for the evidence - thanks.



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

FISHERMAN - Expecting is not good enough. If you have evidence that it happened itŽs a lot better. And I find it hard to believe that someone misheard "Lechmere" for "Cross".
[/QUOTE]

MYSTERYSINGER - No one mis-heard Lechmere for Cross. Given a choice in which to report/spell, the latter would be easiest though. Evidence of using an alias? How about Eddowes who gave the name Mary Ann Kelly to the Police (and the address as 6 Fashion Street). There are, obviously others.

[Fisherman]

MysterySinger: Hmmm

Really? "Hmmm"?

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?

FISHERMAN - 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.


MYSTERYSINGER - I don't think you know for a fact what name(s) Cross gave to the Police when he went to make his statement. I do accept the date and time Cross would have gone to the Police Station.

There are a lot of things that cannot be proven as fact. He could have said "I am Lucius Bellybottom III, but I would like to be called Charles Cross." It is not a proven fact that he did not. What we need to do is to employ our sense of logic and read the material we have.


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

FISHERMAN - 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?"


MYSTERYSINGER - So I am correct, Mizen didn't bother to take down any details for either Cross or Paul. Seems a little odd that you assume that my wording is referring to Mizen as a "lazy and worthless cop" when you're suggesting a much bigger failure of the Police in not undertaking a full investigation of Cross as a potential suspect - don't you think?

No, you are no correct that Mizen did not bother. Either this was so, or he discerningly concluded that the fellow PC had done the job.
And no, I donŽt think I am suggesting a bigger failure on behalf of the police. The evidence suggestes it for me, since we do not have the carmanŽs correct name and since there are no sources anywhere indicating that Lechmere was fully investigated.


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?

FISHERMAN - 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.


MYSTERYSINGER - So essentially you agree that it is down to the reporter which name they use and that Cross could have also given another name at the inquest that wasn't put in the papers.

The name Cross was the name he gave the police, and the name the police subsequently used oin their reports. If he had offered his true name to the police, that true name would have been recorded and used by them. That more or less nullifies the idea that he should have used the name Lechmere at the inquest, since the police would have needed to ask him why he did not give THEM the real name in such a case.



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.

FISHERMAN - 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.



MYSTERYSINGER - Yes the carman must have reported to the Police before the inquest - but can we really state for certainty that he gave no other name than Cross? Please provide a link for the evidence - thanks.

All the inquest reports. They categorically state that he called himself Cross and not one of them indicated that he used any other surname. That, my friend, is the evidence there is, together with the fact that the police never used his real name in their reports as far as we can tell. What evidence is there to the contrary?

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

FISHERMAN - Expecting is not good enough. If you have evidence that it happened itŽs a lot better. And I find it hard to believe that someone misheard "Lechmere" for "Cross".
[/QUOTE]

MYSTERYSINGER - No one mis-heard Lechmere for Cross. Given a choice in which to report/spell, the latter would be easiest though. Evidence of using an alias? How about Eddowes who gave the name Mary Ann Kelly to the Police (and the address as 6 Fashion Street). There are, obviously others.

Many people had aliases. We know it because it is on record. Charles Lechmere is not on record as having used the name Cross in any other context than the Nichols murder enquiries and the ensuing inquest. Nobody has stepped forward to indicate that he did, and we know that he habitually used the name Lechmere in combination with his visits to the authorities. So once again, we are left to probabilities and logic - a VERY difficult field of research to some people.

[John Wheat]

2. The only "Lechmere fanatics" there are, are against the Lechmere theory, not for it. So they should be quite happy about your scenario instead of upset.

But you're the most fanatical person about the Lechmere Theory Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

But you're the most fanatical person about the Lechmere Theory Fisherman.

Fanatism is not saying that changing your name in combination with a murder inquest requires attention.
Fanatism is claiming that it cannot possibly be suspicious to make such a namechange.

As I say, what fanatism there is, is there on behalf on the naysayers. End of story.

[John Wheat]

Fanatism is not saying that changing your name in combination with a murder inquest requires attention.
Fanatism is claiming that it cannot possibly be suspicious to make such a namechange.

As I say, what fanatism there is, is there on behalf on the naysayers. End of story.

As usual you're completely wrong.

[John Wheat]

Fanatism is not saying that changing your name in combination with a murder inquest requires attention.
Fanatism is claiming that it cannot possibly be suspicious to make such a namechange.

As I say, what fanatism there is, is there on behalf on the naysayers. End of story.

If you truly believe anyone is more of a fanatic on Lechmere than you the man who has falsified a case against Lechmere then you are an even bigger buffoon than even I thought.

[MysterySinger]

Just seems to me that some Ripperologists are saying that Charles Allen Lechmere is guilty of not giving his correct name to the Police when this cannot be proven.

We know that the newspapers printed the name Charles Andrew Cross as giving evidence at the inquest but cannot say with certainty that this was the only name he gave. Some people did give more than one name (Holland/Oram). Maybe they just couldn't spell Lechmere (if indeed it was one and the same person).

[Fisherman]

Just seems to me that some Ripperologists are saying that Charles Allen Lechmere is guilty of not giving his correct name to the Police when this cannot be proven.

We know that the newspapers printed the name Charles Andrew Cross as giving evidence at the inquest but cannot say with certainty that this was the only name he gave. Some people did give more than one name (Holland/Oram). Maybe they just couldn't spell Lechmere (if indeed it was one and the same person).

I bet, though, that the police could spell Lechmere. But for some reason, they wrote "Cross" in their reports.

[Fisherman]

If you truly believe anyone is more of a fanatic on Lechmere than you the man who has falsified a case against Lechmere then you are an even bigger buffoon than even I thought.

I would gladly discuss the facts, but there has to be some sort of level of decency. Try again, if you really want a debate.
If you just want to call people names, then donŽt try again.

[GUT]

I bet, though, that the police could spell Lechmere. But for some reason, they wrote "Cross" in their reports.

What reports?

[Fisherman]

What reports?

There are reports from the 19:th of September and the 19:th of October (if I remember correctly) where the carman is named.

As Cross.

[GUT]

There are reports from the 19:th of September and the 19:th of October (if I remember correctly) where the carman is named.

As Cross.

Can you post them.

I thought you were talking about complete reports, if it's only two we have no idea what may be in the others.