Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[MrBarnett]

No idea what one has to do with the other.

Ah, the old confusion thing again.

THE MET DIDN'T ALWAYS GET IT RIGHT. To Wynne Baxter's surprise they didn't do a house-to-house on Buck's Row, and either they didn't check Lechmere out or they preferred to use a 'nickname' to his actual one.

[harry]

It was not a false name.Cross was an alternate name he was legally entitled to use.

[GUT]

You got me there. Of course, they must have checked him out thoroughly, but decided to stick with the 'false' name he had given them rather than bother to refer to him by his actual name.

No one said they checked him out, they said he was traceable. Personally I think they did check him out. If you have the complete file you can tell us if his name was recorded.

Oh that's right it's gone.

[MrBarnett]

Yeah and having his address and place of work wouldn't have helped find him at all.

You got me there. Of course, they must have checked him out thoroughly, but decided to stick with the 'false' name he had given them rather than bother to refer to him by his actual name.

[GUT]

Indeed. And it would have been even easier for the police to have knocked at a few more doors in Buck's Row to find out whether they had heard Polly's steel-tipped heels clattering along the cobbles - but they didn't.

No idea what one has to do with the other.

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

I'm aware of how easily you become confused. If you follow the explanation below very slowly, it might help you understand what I meant by a 'local knowledge' that might not have been available to the police. Fingers crossed:

Not every H. Div. constable knew the surname of everyone who lived within his jurisdiction, or was aware of the names by which every single child in the area had ever been known... But if they had a momentary memory lapse, all they had to do was look it up on the 1888 version of the PNC.

Oh, ****, PNC didn't exist then! So I suppose it was a case of knocking on doors - but they were pretty good at that, though, weren't they?

Get it?

Yeah and having his address and place of work wouldn't have helped find him at all.

[MrBarnett]

Exactly. As I said easily traceable.

Indeed. And it would have been even easier for the police to have knocked at a few more doors in Buck's Row to find out whether they had heard Polly's steel-tipped heels clattering along the cobbles - but they didn't.

[MrBarnett]

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

But then I'm easily confused.

Hi GUT,

I'm aware of how easily you become confused. If you follow the explanation below very slowly, it might help you understand what I meant by a 'local knowledge' that might not have been available to the police. Fingers crossed:

Not every H. Div. constable knew the surname of everyone who lived within his jurisdiction, or was aware of the names by which every single child in the area had ever been known... But if they had a momentary memory lapse, all they had to do was look it up on the 1888 version of the PNC.

Oh, ****, PNC didn't exist then! So I suppose it was a case of knocking on doors - but they were pretty good at that, though, weren't they?

Get it?

[John Wheat]

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

Exactly. As I said easily traceable.

[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.

[MrBarnett]

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

[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]

Hi John,

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

Gary

[John Wheat]

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

[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 itīs a lot better. And I find it hard to believe that someone misheard "Lechmere" for "Cross".