Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

----

[Varqm]

It makes perfect sense; you and Abby are simply looking at it wrong. Look at it from the perspective of a prosecutor.

In cases like this--where the victim is a street prostitute--the most important factor is time of death. If the time of death is in dispute or unknown, it doesn't matter how detailed the witness's description is; the defense will make mincemeat of it. The victim willingly goes with any number of strangers, so why are you picking on my client? The client was seen with her, but she could have had 2 or 3 other customers after he left.

Hutchinson's description may have been fantastic from an investigative point of view, but it had considerably less value from a legal point of view.

In the case of Kelly, the time of death was in great dispute. There were even witnesses willing to swear she was alive and well HOURS after Hutchinson saw the man with her. This puts Hutch's testimony on very shaky grounds if he was ever brought into a court room.

Ditto Mrs. Long. It is entirely possible that Long and only Long saw the actual murderer, but her testimony is completely undercut by the police surgeon's estimate time of death.

In the case of Schwartz, we see Swanson musing in his internal report about the possibility of Stride having picked up a second client after the alleged assault---Swanson was clearly wondering about the value of Schwartz as a witness in the case of a prosecution.

Only in the case of Kate Eddowes was there little or no doubt about the time of death, so Lawende was given a status as the most important witness. It has nothing to do with the detail of his description; it has to do with circumstances under which he saw the suspect. Rightly or wrongly, Scotland Yard was convinced that he saw the murderer. The same cannot be said of Long, Schwartz, or Hutchinson. This is why Lawende became Anderson's super witness. It in no way, shape, or form implies that Hutchinson, Long, or Schwartz were dismissed as potential witnesses.

Robert Anderson was first and foremost a lawyer...in fact, Scotland Yard specifically wanted a lawyer at the head of the C.I.D. so he would be sensitive to the legal aspects of an investigation.

Anderson is why Lawende is at the top of the heap and remained there.

As with post #1663 Hutch's testimony was "bad" they had no choice but use Lawende.

---

[Sam Flynn]

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

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.

[Varqm]

It makes perfect sense; you and Abby are simply looking at it wrong. Look at it from the perspective of a prosecutor.

In cases like this--where the victim is a street prostitute--the most important factor is time of death. If the time of death is in dispute or unknown, it doesn't matter how detailed the witness's description is; the defense will make mincemeat of it. The victim willingly goes with any number of strangers, so why are you picking on my client? The client was seen with her, but she could have had 2 or 3 other customers after he left.

Hutchinson's description may have been fantastic from an investigative point of view, but it had considerably less value from a legal point of view.

In the case of Kelly, the time of death was in great dispute. There were even witnesses willing to swear she was alive and well HOURS after Hutchinson saw the man with her. This puts Hutch's testimony on very shaky grounds if he was ever brought into a court room.

Ditto Mrs. Long. It is entirely possible that Long and only Long saw the actual murderer, but her testimony is completely undercut by the police surgeon's estimate time of death.

In the case of Schwartz, we see Swanson musing in his internal report about the possibility of Stride having picked up a second client after the alleged assault---Swanson was clearly wondering about the value of Schwartz as a witness in the case of a prosecution.

Only in the case of Kate Eddowes was there little or no doubt about the time of death, so Lawende was given a status as the most important witness. It has nothing to do with the detail of his description; it has to do with circumstances under which he saw the suspect. Rightly or wrongly, Scotland Yard was convinced that he saw the murderer. The same cannot be said of Long, Schwartz, or Hutchinson. This is why Lawende became Anderson's super witness. It in no way, shape, or form implies that Hutchinson, Long, or Schwartz were dismissed as potential witnesses.

Robert Anderson was first and foremost a lawyer...in fact, Scotland Yard specifically wanted a lawyer at the head of the C.I.D. so he would be sensitive to the legal aspects of an investigation.

Anderson is why Lawende is at the top of the heap and remained there.

I think the police were leaning towards the "oh Murder" time as the time of death warning Maxwell her testimony was "different".A man still in Kelly's room by 3:00 AM, the time Hutch left, would have been easily a possible "suspect",so much so or enough that Abberline somewhat immediately had Hutch spot/find the possible "suspect" in the district "a few hours tonight",the first thing was identify the man.
Although additionally Lawende was corroborated by Levy,it was still "dead on arrival" if there was a trial against a suspect,unless they had a clothes/organs/confession,because the only evidence they rely on was the star witness who said:

inquest:"[Coroner] Would you know him again? - I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me. " and
Smith:"You will easily recognize him, then," I said. "Oh no!" he replied ; "I only had a short look at him.".

I think Hutch was the better witness because what good is this witness(Lawende) if he said the above.So it made sense Hutch's testimony was discarded.At the very least,I think, they would have retained both as witnesses.

------

[Abby Normal]

Hello Ben
But he'd put himself on the spot anyway and, having done so, mentioning Lewis's arrival could only have bolstered his credentials as an honest witness. Indeed, failing to do so could have opened up an unwelcome can of worms by alerting the police to this glaring omission in his story.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Ben

If Hutchinson was indeed there that night, but not for the “innocent” reasons he would later relate, it made every sense not to mention Lewis; otherwise there was a heightened risk of the police putting two and two together and realising that he only came forward after discovering he had been seen.

But he'd put himself on the spot anyway and, having done so, mentioning Lewis's arrival could only have bolstered his credentials as an honest witness. Indeed, failing to do so could have opened up an unwelcome can of worms by alerting the police to this glaring omission in his story.