Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Rainbow]

Lechmere and Hutchinson two random witnesses and nothing more.

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°

[John Wheat]

John Wheat one random Casebook poster and nothing more.

Fisherman a random casebook member who cherry picks what he replies to e.g. anything he can't handle he won't reply to.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere and Hutchinson two random witnesses and nothing more.

John Wheat one random Casebook poster and nothing more.

[John Wheat]

Lechmere and Hutchinson two random witnesses and nothing more.

[Fisherman]

Ahh, we at that stage.

The stage where you turn to semantics, rather than deal with actual material.

So far we've dealt with three points off your 31 point list and we can put two of them down to unverified guesswork.

I'm not surprised you are backpedalling from the issues raised.

You are welcome to ask away about anything you need to have clarified. 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.

[Rainbow]

So Lechmere claimed that he never saw or heard anything before he discovered the body. Wow, way to take the heat off yourself there, Lechy. If you were the killer you could've said you heard the faintest of retreating footsteps as you entered Buck's Row. Anything. But nope. It's almost as if he's naively telling the truth, isn't it?

And give the Police a clear idea about the exact time of the murder ?

Not only that, but also put himself in this same exact timezone ?!

He rejected Pauls claims that she was still alive for that reason, to distance himself from the murder's time and told the police he believes she was dead..



Rainbow°