Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Varqm]

except it didn't. and perhaps he didn't want to tip his hand that it was her seeing him that was the impetus of him coming forward, nor perhaps did he want them to make the connection because perhaps he wasn't sure what she had seen (him standing or entering kellys room) or hadn't seen (no Aman-blows his story).

better to just leave her out either way.

Or Hutch heard about Lewis's testimony and he assumed Lewis's lurking man and tried to avoid her because as you say " she was the impetus of him coming forward",she was the one person who could destroy his story.
But it could also have been Hutch was making it somewhat clear it was the wrong day a "lie" by not mentioning Lewis and saying in a newspaper "I saw the PC and the lodger but no one else-not the old woman".If they bought it and bring in some money,good,if not so what there was no law.Almost like Packer.

----

[Bridewell]

I have the same problem with Hutchinson as I do with Cross aka Lechmere. If an assumption is made that the individual is a serial killer and then his evidence is examined retrospectively, with that assumption in mind, his every action can be viewed in a sinister light. Thus Crossmere does what any right-thinking individual would have done in the same circumstances and is accused of being JtR. Ditto Hutchinson. Several of the witnesses could have been JtR. Cadosch lived next door to a crime scene and gives himself an alibi for the time when (if Mrs Long is right) Chapman was killed. Schwartz places himself at the scene of the Stride murder and provides an account which conveniently covers the possible need to explain why he might have been seen running away.

Those who claim that Lechmere was JtR accept that Hutchinson wasn't. Those who claim that Hutchinson was JtR accept that Lechmere wasn't. So why should those of us without a horse in that particular race accept that either of them was anything more than they claimed to be? One or other of the witnesses could have been JtR but I see no evidence that any of them actually was - just supposition and theory.

[Ben]

Anderson’s preference for Lawende owed considerably more to common sense than it did to any legal concerns. As RJ points out, it was a critical sighting insofar as it occurred just ten minutes prior to the discovery of Eddowes’ body. However, unlike Hutchinson’s alleged sighting, there was no evidence that the victim escorted the suspect to the final location of her demise; it is merely assumed that she did.

It wasn’t a contest between all witnesses to determine a “winner” to the exclusion of all “runners up”. If Hutchinson continued to be deemed reliable, his evidence would have been considered alongside Lawende’s, which meant being recalled to attend the identification attempts of Sadler, Grainger etc, just as Lawende was. If a link could be established between the crimes scenes as a result of positive ID from more than one witness, the suspect’s game would be up.

Anderson would not have stated that “the only person to get a good look at the murderer” was Jewish if he knew of the existence of other witnesses who also probably saw the murderer and got much better “looks”.

Hutchinson would only have been excluded (not just from identity attempts, but from mere mention) if the police were in a position either to rule out Astrakhan as the ripper or dismiss Hutchinson as a genuine witness. Since the former was impossible owing to the uncertain time of death, we’re left with the latter, which just so happened to coincide with the reports of his discrediting that surfaced very shortly after he was interviewed by the press in mid-November of ‘88.

These reports, coupled with the memoirs, interviews and actions of senior police officials subsequent to the murders, paint a very clear picture; that Hutchinson was considered neither “fantastic from an investigative point of view” nor from a legal one. Unless of course you were referring to the alternative definition of “fantastic”, which is derived from “fantasy”, in which case no argument from me!

As Varqm points out, Lawende was certainly not the strongest witness from a legal perspective. His professed doubt as to whether or not he could recognise the man again is in stark contract to Hutchinson’s vivid description and insistence that he could “swear to the man anywhere”. The latter would obviously have carried considerably more weight in a courtroom in the event that a suspect was compared to his Astrakhan description.

Too bad that option was never on the cards for the police, owing to the fact that Hutchinson’s story was “discredited”, “very reduced” in importance, and “considerably discounted” shortly after it first appeared.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

If Hutchinson realised he had been seen by Lewis and consequently came forward with the intention of providing a bogus explanation for his loitering presence, it was because he was concerned about a link being established before he had a chance to insert that bogus explanation. It was a preemptive measure in the event that the “Wideawake = Hutch” connection was made.

That doesn’t mean there was any advantage in enabling the police to register the connection any sooner than they needed to. If Hutchinson was the murderer, for instance, drawing unnecessary attention to the fact that he was Lewis’s man would have deprived him of one very crucial escape route in the event that he was disbelieved; dismissal as a timewaster.

Since that precisely describes his ultimate treatment, I would argue that his non-mention of Lewis worked a treat; whereas it would have been disastrous for him if, after the police cemented his identity as the wideawake man, they began to smell a rat with his account. They would have been left with a man who told a bogus story, who was definitely loitering near the crime scene shortly before the crime itself occurred.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

But, like I say, he'd already put himself in the line of fire, and by leaving Lewis out of his story he was leaving himself wide open to suspicion ("Ere, Sarge, why didn't 'e mention that Lewis woman when he was keepin' watch on the entrance when she went in?").

Sorry, I just don't understand why he wouldn't have mentioned Lewis, unless he hadn't seen her. And, if he hadn't seen her, then there's a good chance that he was never there.

Except he was there. By his own words doing exactly what lewis said he was doing also.

[Abby Normal]

I have the same problem with Hutchinson as I do with Cross aka Lechmere. If an assumption is made that the individual is a serial killer and then his evidence is examined retrospectively, with that assumption in mind, his every action can be viewed in a sinister light. Thus Crossmere does what any right-thinking individual would have done in the same circumstances and is accused of being JtR. Ditto Hutchinson. Several of the witnesses could have been JtR. Cadosch lived next door to a crime scene and gives himself an alibi for the time when (if Mrs Long is right) Chapman was killed. Schwartz places himself at the scene of the Stride murder and provides an account which conveniently covers the possible need to explain why he might have been seen running away.

Those who claim that Lechmere was JtR accept that Hutchinson wasn't. Those who claim that Hutchinson was JtR accept that Lechmere wasn't. So why should those of us without a horse in that particular race accept that either of them was anything more than they claimed to be? One or other of the witnesses could have been JtR but I see no evidence that any of them actually was - just supposition and theory.

Hi bridewell
The difference being there really are no red flags with those witnesses.

Hutch, lech, and some extent richardson all have have red flags with there stories.

They were all close to the victims around time of death and have de facto issues with there stories.

These are the types that need closer scrutiny.

[Wickerman]

.....If Hutch was the most significant witness and subsequent inquiries proved to be positive why then did not the police used him as a witness in the Sadler case and the seaside home identification?

What do they do, put a Wanted add in the papers for Mr George Hutchinson to come to the station?
It's not like we haven't been over that before.

Lawende had a business, the police knew where to find him.

[Wickerman]

sarah lewis only corroborates his stalking behavior.
Bowyer corroborates nothing
no one corroborates Mary out at that time or Aman.

The press report about Bowyer tells us he saw the same man described by Hutchinson.

"Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid."
The Echo, 14 Nov. 1888.

This was on the 14th, the only description published as the murderer was that given by Hutchinson.

[Scott Nelson]

Lawende had a business, the police knew where to find him.

Probably after they interviewed John Hyam, the manager of the Imperial Club.

[Wickerman]

However, Hutchinson does't mention her. If he'd wanted to reinforce his credibility - as if to say, "I must have been the man seen by Lewis, because I saw her enter the Court" - surely he'd have gone out of his way to do so, yet he didn't mention seeing her at all. (Before Jon chips in, I really don't buy the idea that Hutchinson or Badham wouldn't have been interested in reporting having seen a female.)

As I've said before Gareth, Hutchinson was not defending himself in his statement. It was Abberline who would have asked him for some corroboration and we do not know what words passed between Abberline and Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

why dosnt he mention it in his inquest statement?

Bowyer's was only questioned about his discovery of the body, not what he was doing seven hours before.

[Wickerman]

Thanks trevor

I remember Debs a few years back finding an article in a paper (ibeleive different from the one you mentioned) that has a direct quote from Bowyer saying he was in the court around 3ish and NOT seeing anyone. and saying something to the effect that the killer was maybe in her room at the time and regretting he could have caught him.

do you remember?


so, that story dosnt corroborate Hutchs Aman, and to my mind cast a bit of suspicion on Bowyer.

This must be what you are referring to.

"He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."

It's part of the same article quoted by Trevor & myself.
All he is saying is that he hadn't realised that man he saw had been the killer.

[Wickerman]

Trevor, a contemporary newspaper report is a primary source:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

It's not really a question of whether a newspaper is a primary or secondary source. Such a statement is misleading.

It is the stories that are either primary or secondary.
A newspaper provides both primary & secondary stories.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have the same problem with Hutchinson as I do with Cross aka Lechmere. If an assumption is made that the individual is a serial killer and then his evidence is examined retrospectively, with that assumption in mind, his every action can be viewed in a sinister light. Thus Crossmere does what any right-thinking individual would have done in the same circumstances and is accused of being JtR. Ditto Hutchinson. Several of the witnesses could have been JtR. Cadosch lived next door to a crime scene and gives himself an alibi for the time when (if Mrs Long is right) Chapman was killed. Schwartz places himself at the scene of the Stride murder and provides an account which conveniently covers the possible need to explain why he might have been seen running away.

Those who claim that Lechmere was JtR accept that Hutchinson wasn't. Those who claim that Hutchinson was JtR accept that Lechmere wasn't. So why should those of us without a horse in that particular race accept that either of them was anything more than they claimed to be? One or other of the witnesses could have been JtR but I see no evidence that any of them actually was - just supposition and theory.

I totally agree

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi bridewell
The difference being there really are no red flags with those witnesses.

Hutch, lech, and some extent richardson all have have red flags with there stories.

The only red flags there are, are those created by researchers who think to much, and want to see what is not there to be seen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk