Henry David Reynolds

[Gary Barnett]

After his widowed mother remarried, Henry David Reynolds adopted his stepfather’s surname of Scott. In September, 1889, aged 19, he appeared at the Old Bailey charged with burglary. The indictment was in the name of Henry David Scott. At the time, his stepfather was still alive and Reynolds was living in his household; his stepfather was then a coachsmith and his brother Walter (Scott) was a coach painter. HDR’s occupation was recorded as ‘labourer’ but by 1891 he too was a coachsmith. I’m not sure whether Walter was Henry David’s full or half brother. (Something to look into.)

HDR clocked up at least four convictions:

February, 1889: burglary, as Henry David Scott.

September, 1889; burglary, as Henry David Scott.

December, 1891: burglary and violent theft (2 counts) as Henry David Reynolds. A previous conviction ‘in the name of Henry David Scott’ was referenced.

HDR had good reason to use his stepfather’s name in 1889. His stepfather was still alive, they were living in the same household and possibly working at the same trade. Even so, his mother thought it appropriate to reveal his ‘proper’ name when giving evidence at the Old Bailey in September of that year. By the time his mother spoke up Reynolds had been indicted in the name of Scott, so it was probably too late to change the court record. However, when he came to court again in 1891, it was in the name of Reynolds and the previous use of Scott was recorded. Subsequently, in the habitual criminals register, the name Scott was described as an ‘alias’. Whether it was Reynolds himself or the police/court who chose to use his proper name in 1891 isn’t known. It was obviously the correct thing to do in such a formal situation.

This is allegedly one of the examples of Lord Orsam’s ‘flawless’ research that finally puts the Lechmere name issue ‘to bed’.

Really? I’d say it achieves the exact opposite. Even though HDR’s stepfather was still alive and he was living and possibly working with him, his ‘proper’ name was disclosed. Compare that to Lechmere whose first (bigamous) stepfather had been dead for a couple of decades.

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-721-18890916&div=t18890916-721#highlight

[Gary Barnett]

If anyone has any more info on HDR or the Reynolds/Scott household, don’t be shy add it here. ;-)

[Gary Barnett]

Interestingly, HDR’s life archive on Digital Panopticon only contains the two convictions in the name of Scott. His ‘proper’ name is omitted. That’s what happens when people use alternative names and don’t cross (;-)) reference them.

I wonder what Henry’s mother’s thought processes were when she gave evidence as Eliza Scott but felt compelled to disclose that her son’s ‘proper’ name was Reynolds.

[Kattrup]

Hello Gary

It's probably no surprise that I do not really agree with your theory. Perhaps it stems from disagreement about what the "Lechmere name issue" is.

As you will see from the trial transcript, HDR's proper name comes about through questioning by HDR himself, so it's not as if some big secret is revealed. The prisoner is asking his own mother about their relationship for the record, probably in the form of questions like

"Who are you?" "Eliza Scott. My Husband is a coachsmith"
"Where do you live?" "we live at 33, Cathcart Street, Kentish Town"
"Do you know me?" "I am your mother; your proper name is Henry David Reynolds"
"Why am I called Scott now then?" "I have married again, and you took your stepfather's name"

As for this 1889-exchange being the basis for the use of the name Reynolds in the 1891-case, I think a likelier explanation is that he had married in the meantime. As has been pointed out, marriage was a common occassion for people to revert to their family name, for a variety of reasons. So HDR having established himself as head of his own family used his family name, and gave it to his wife Susan. Nothing to do with his mother's thinking it appropriate to "reveal" his proper name.

I looked for David Orsam writing about HDR but have not found it, could you link it please?

Also, you wonder whether Walter Scott is HDR's half- og full brother. I have not seen any birth records, but as Walter Scott states that he is HDR's elder brother, surely he too is a product of Eliza Scott's earlier marriage. One notes, then, that he too calls himself Scott, and appears as a witness under that name in court. Should we now suspect of him of murder? Perhaps with his mother as an accomplice, since she did not deem it appropriate to "reveal" Walter's proper name.

Bottom line is that there was no obligation to "reveal" or mention one's birth name or proper name. One could appear as a witness under whatever name one wished. There is therefore no "Lechmere name issue".

[Gary Barnett]

Someone on CB mentioned the Reynolds example as being one of David Orsam’s or possibly yours? Post 629 here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/lechmere-cross-charles/9467-charles-lechmere-prototypical-life-of-a-serial-killer/page42#post814292

My theory is that many people thought it appropriate to disclose their proper names in court. Many, many examples of that have been provided. Unless Reynolds broached the name subject himself there was no reason for his mother to do so unless she thought it was the proper thing to do.

Thank you for the suggestion that HDR’s marriage might have been the trigger for him to return to using his proper name. That possibility had occurred to me. When was it that Lechmere married? 1870?

[Gary Barnett]

By 1891, Reynolds was himself a coachsmith, as his stepfather Mr Scott had been. And yet when he marries he drops Scott almost immediately and becomes Reynolds again? HDR is a gift that keeps on giving.

My reference to full/half brother was an error. I meant brother/stepbrother.

[Gary Barnett]

Hello Gary

It's probably no surprise that I do not really agree with your theory. Perhaps it stems from disagreement about what the "Lechmere name issue" is.

As you will see from the trial transcript, HDR's proper name comes about through questioning by HDR himself, so it's not as if some big secret is revealed. The prisoner is asking his own mother about their relationship for the record, probably in the form of questions like

"Who are you?" "Eliza Scott. My Husband is a coachsmith"
"Where do you live?" "we live at 33, Cathcart Street, Kentish Town"
"Do you know me?" "I am your mother; your proper name is Henry David Reynolds"
"Why am I called Scott now then?" "I have married again, and you took your stepfather's name"

As for this 1889-exchange being the basis for the use of the name Reynolds in the 1891-case, I think a likelier explanation is that he had married in the meantime. As has been pointed out, marriage was a common occassion for people to revert to their family name, for a variety of reasons. So HDR having established himself as head of his own family used his family name, and gave it to his wife Susan. Nothing to do with his mother's thinking it appropriate to "reveal" his proper name.

I looked for David Orsam writing about HDR but have not found it, could you link it please?

Also, you wonder whether Walter Scott is HDR's half- og full brother. I have not seen any birth records, but as Walter Scott states that he is HDR's elder brother, surely he too is a product of Eliza Scott's earlier marriage. One notes, then, that he too calls himself Scott, and appears as a witness under that name in court. Should we now suspect of him of murder? Perhaps with his mother as an accomplice, since she did not deem it appropriate to "reveal" Walter's proper name.

Bottom line is that there was no obligation to "reveal" or mention one's birth name or proper name. One could appear as a witness under whatever name one wished. There is therefore no "Lechmere name issue".

One final point, are you suggesting that a witness who has sworn under oath to tell the truth could use any made up name he chose?

[Gary Barnett]

The idea that someone might be known by one name but then get married under another raises an interesting question. For three consecutive Sundays prior to a church wedding a notice of the impending nuptials was read out in the church and then posted somewhere that parishioners could see them. These are the banns and the reason for doing this is to provide an opportunity for anyone who knows the couple and knows of a reason why they can’t legally marry to notify the authorities of the fact. If you are known to all and sundry as Scott and your banns are made out on the name of Reynolds, that might circumvent the purpose of the banns.

[Gary Barnett]

Yet another tangent.

[Kattrup]

If anyone has any more info on HDR or the Reynolds/Scott household, don’t be shy add it here. ;-)

Hi Gary

As mentioned elsewhere, David Barrat has added lots more info on HDR and his family here, case study 3: https://www.orsam.co.uk/post/lechmer...e-issue-part-3

You stated you've no wish to read more of his research examples that demonstrate why your theory about what name Charles Cross should have given as a witness is wrong, but as you specifically requested more info about HDR, I'm sure you'll be pleased to read what he's found. There's even a photo of HDR!

[Gary Barnett]

My ‘theory’ is that CAL would have thought it appropriate to disclose his real name, but chose not to. I’m grateful to you and his lordship for proving that many people thought that way.

Has the Lord of Bile disproved my theory?

[Gary Barnett]

I think my take on the name issue is more of a pair of hypotheses than a theory. I suspect CAL deliberately omitted his real name either because he didn’t want to besmirch the prestigious Lechmere name or because he feared that providing both his real name and his former stepfather’s name would have revealed his mother’s bigamy.

If David has disproved those, I’ll take my hat off to him.

[Harry Mann]

It has long been known that a name alone does not neccessarily prove identity.That is why authorities,and those that represent them ,normally ask for additiomal information,such as an address and occupation.There are now other aids such as fingerprints,DNA,and voice reckonition.
In 1888,except for the three I have listed earlier there were of course facial and other physical attributes that helped in identification.
So did Cross identify himself properly.To the authoriies of that time he did.To myself he did.

[Gary Barnett]

It has long been known that a name alone does not neccessarily prove identity.That is why authorities,and those that represent them ,normally ask for additiomal information,such as an address and occupation.There are now other aids such as fingerprints,DNA,and voice reckonition.
In 1888,except for the three I have listed earlier there were of course facial and other physical attributes that helped in identification.
So did Cross identify himself properly.To the authoriies of that time he did.To myself he did.

H,

Is your ‘real’ name Harry Mann?

[Harry Mann]

My birth certificate says so Garry.