Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson?

[Wickerman]

If this case occurred today any recent boyfriend of the victim, especially one who may have abused her, would have been sought out and investigated.
That is basic common sense, so I have no reason to believe the police would have acted any different in 1888.
Sure, it would be nice if something had survived in the police files concerning Flemming, but the same can be said for a lot of individuals in this case.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Wickerman,

... Sure, it would be nice if something had survived in the police files concerning Flemming, but the same can be said for a lot of individuals in this case.

A true statement if I've ever heard one.

James Kelly is the only suspect I know of whom the police went looking for when the trail was hot. Immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.

If this case occurred today any recent boyfriend of the victim, especially one who may have abused her, would have been sought out and investigated.
That is basic common sense, so I have no reason to believe the police would have acted any different in 1888.

Neither do I. But London, much less the East End, was a very different place than anything I've known. Filled, crammed to the gills with people of all stripes, a population density of three times today. Folks were very mobile and used a different name at the drop of a hat, too. Joe Fleming could get lost up in that quite easily. When he was still Fleming. By the time he went mad he was going by Evans.

Look at James Kelly. He managed to escape from the Home Office flagship prison/mental ward and was never caught by police. Joe Fleming going to ground would be a piece of cake. Or Flemming, as was recorded.

Roy

[Fisherman]

Here’s Dews faulty logic:

Hutchinson reported that MJK had been drinking on the night he saw her. When Maxwell saw her, she had a hangover. According to Dew, Kelly had been drinking on the night before she was murdered - which she was not used to doing - so Hutchinson’s drunk Kelly is the baby thrown out with the Maxwell Bathwater.

I have a few problems with this, so you need to help me out, Gary!

Did Hutchinson report that Kelly had been drinking? What he says is: "Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little spreeish."

I take that to mean that Hutchinson meant that she could have had a little to drink, but not enough to make her drunk.

Then you say that Maxwell said she had a hangover, which is perfectly correct. The problem only arises when we add the possibility of a muddling of the days on Hutchinsons behalf, because if this was so, then he is speaking of a spreeish Kelly in the early hours of Thursday, whereas Maxwell is speaking of a hung over Kelly on Friday morning. And then we should add to the mixture the possibility (or near certainty) that Maxwell wasn´t speaking of Kelly at all, but instead of some other woman, unless Phillips and Bond were both way out in their estimations of TOD.

It all becomes hard to keep track of when we add these circumstances, and so I am not really sure what you are getting at here?

[Fisherman]

Here’s Dew on Maxwell’s evidence:

In one way at least her version fitted into the facts as known. We knew that Marie had been drinking the previous night, and, as this was not a habit of hers, illness the next morning was just what might have been expected.

Several other witnesses mention Kelly’s occasional bouts of drunkenness, so Dew made a howler there - particularly if he used her supposed unfamiliarity with drink to dismiss both Maxwell and Hutch, and by default to pin the crime on blotchy.

Howlers don’t come more howly than that.

I disagree, actually. Howlers come much more howly than that.

If I was to pick a really obvious mistake, I would go for him saying that Paul never came forward. Because here we KNOW that he is wrong.

I would nevertheless say that his info on Paul is relevant and interesting anyway, since it tells us that there were real efforts made to bring Paul on the stage. In that sense, we get a view behind the scenes that is valuable. But it does not alter the fact that Dew is patently wrong here.

The drunkenness on Kellys behalf is another matter. What Dew says is that drinking was not a habit of hers, and it is always hard to say when something becomes a habit. Sure enough, others say that she had a flair for drinking, but where are the statistics telling us how often it happened?

That is one problem here. The other is that Dew seems to have been aquainted with Mary, more or less, knowing and recognizing her quite well. And that opens up for how he could have been informed on the topic by Mary herself. Or misinformed, for that matter. The gist of the matter is that if this was so, then it would be quite understandable that Dew said what he said.

If we look at these parameters, I think we need to recognize that it is not an open and shut case.

But! This is not the really important thing here. The reason we discuss this at all falls back on how the matter of source evaluation surfaced when we brought Dew into the discussion - can we rely on him or can we not?

The extremes are both easily ruled out:

We must trust every word he says.

We must not trust a syllable from his mouth.

Neither applies. Dew was always a source that students of the case refer to, and he will remain so. He won´t go away. and so what we should do is to try and evaluate to which degree he can be used, and with what level of certainty.

That in itself can only boil down to one factor - how much does he get right in his book. And I would say that I have little doubt that 90 per cent plus of what he says is correct. Accordingly, I think there is a 90 per cent plus chance that he is right, generally speaking, whichever parameter we look at. That of course only holds true until the parameter looked at cannot be otherwise proven wrong on account of other evidence existing. Like, for example, the Paul matter - clearly, Dew is 100 per cent wrong when he says that Paulwas never found.

The matter of Hutchinson, though, does not contain any other evidence saying that Hutchinson was dishonest. And let´s keep in mind that this is the one parameter I am speaking of; I am not saying that Dew´s opting for how Hutchinson would have mistaken the days is 90 per cent plus certain to be true - that is a guess on Dews behalf, and how well informed it is is anybody´s guess once more.

What I am speaking about is instead how Hutchinson was perceived by the police in the veracity matter. And here, I would say that we must apply a 90 per cent plus credibility that he mirrors the thoughts of his colleagues.

When we look at what he said, we should keep the ongoing battle between the Hutchinsonians and the non-Hutchinsonians in mind. Amongst the latter, some say that Hutchinsons story was never discredited at all, and that the search for Astrakhan man was on long after the evening papers had written about how Hutchinsons story had been discredited.

So what does Dew say? Does he agree that Hutchinsons story and the man himself were never brought into disbelief in any way?

No, he does not. He says that Hutchinson was a witness he would not reflect upon as anything but a truthful man. But he very clearly disbelieves his story, because he sets himself the task to explain HOW Hutchinson "erred". There is never any question that he did err, though, and that is why an explanation is needed.

So we come away with the memoirs of a man who served in the Met in 1888, and who is searching for an explanation as to what kind of error it was that a man - whose veracity he would not call into question - made.

And that man got 90 per cent plus right in his book.

So do we discard him? No. Never. Not a chance.

Do we believe him? Yes.

Do we keep the possility open that he as wrong on the matter, given that we know that he failed to get things correct in a number of matters? Yes, of course we do.

He was in all probability right, but we can´t be 100 per cent certain.

That is the sound approach we must take. It is far better and more relevant than to speak of his book as a collection of howlers.

[Fisherman]

But we know next to nothing about his lifestyle in 1888 other than that he was unemployed for a short period, lived in one of the more respectable East End lodging houses and hoofed it back from Romford on one occasion.

If he went there on the promise of a job or, as a groom, in the hope of some casual work at the livestock market, he’d presumably have had a grasp of the days of the week. He was a young man from a seemingly respectable family who by 1891 was living in respectable lodgings in west London and employed in the trade that his father had followed.

We know he was a groom and that he engaged in occasional labour when he found such. We know that he spoke of the "place where I usually stay", meaning that he stayed elsewhere on occasion, all consistent with jumping between jobs and sleeping quarters. We know that he had walked to Romford, quite possibly to work there.

It is by no means a complete list, but it paints a picture of a man with anything but a routinish way of life. And so we cannot write off that this had an impact on how easy or hard it was for him to keep track of the days.

[Fisherman]

If Hutch did get the dates wrong we are still left with the problems of believing his over-elaborate description, eyelashes and all. His waiting until after the inquest to come forward, plus the fact that you would almost certainly have heard within a few hours [if you were in Whitechapel] about the events in Miller's court. And let's say, for argument's sake that he didn't think the murder occurred [at first], until later in the morning [Maxwell], he would surely remember that he had seen Mary that night, surly looking Gentleman, followed them etc. But to me, the main reason I don't believe he mixed the evenings up is, would someone who was pertaining to obvious wealth be wandering a dangerous area of Whitechapel at night [bag in hand, easily snatchable, gold chain], go down a notorious street and be led into a darkened court by a prostitute whilst all the time being followed by a man she had spoken to who could easily be her accomplice.

Once again, he would not have forgotten about the details as such, he would have mixed up WHEN he saw that. It is all about telling sequential memeory apart from detail memory.
How hard can that be?

I can tell what has happened to me the last few weeks, extraordinary things I have seen, nice meals I have eaten. One remembers such matters, but normally NOT because they happened on a certain day.

[Sam Flynn]

We know he was a groom and that he engaged in occasional labour when he found such. We know that he spoke of the "place where I usually stay", meaning that he stayed elsewhere on occasion, all consistent with jumping between jobs and sleeping quarters. We know that he had walked to Romford, quite possibly to work there.

It is by no means a complete list, but it paints a picture of a man with anything but a routinish way of life. And so we cannot write off that this had an impact on how easy or hard it was for him to keep track of the days.

If he had mixed up the days - which I don't believe for one minute - then we must accept that Hutchinson had witnessed Kelly's encounter with an unusually dressed and sinister-looking customer clutching a dodgy parcel in the small hours of another morning shortly before her death - how likely is that? Assuming Hutchinson didn't make it up, of course - if he had, why approach the police with an invented story that didn't take place on the morning of the murder? Neither option makes sense.

[MrBarnett]

I have a few problems with this, so you need to help me out, Gary!

Did Hutchinson report that Kelly had been drinking? What he says is: "Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little spreeish."

I take that to mean that Hutchinson meant that she could have had a little to drink, but not enough to make her drunk.

Then you say that Maxwell said she had a hangover, which is perfectly correct. The problem only arises when we add the possibility of a muddling of the days on Hutchinsons behalf, because if this was so, then he is speaking of a spreeish Kelly in the early hours of Thursday, whereas Maxwell is speaking of a hung over Kelly on Friday morning. And then we should add to the mixture the possibility (or near certainty) that Maxwell wasn´t speaking of Kelly at all, but instead of some other woman, unless Phillips and Bond were both way out in their estimations of TOD.

It all becomes hard to keep track of when we add these circumstances, and so I am not really sure what you are getting at here?

I think we can safely interpret ‘spreeish’ as meaning excitedly intoxicated?

Here’s what others said about MJK:

Barnett:

When she was with me I found her of sober habits, but she has been drunk several times in my presence.


John McCarthy:

I frequently saw the deceased the worse for drink. When sober she was an exceptionally quiet woman, but when in drink she had more to say. She was able to walk about, and was not helpless.


Mary Ann Cox:

I have often seen the woman the worse for drink.


Julia Vanturney:

Deceased often got drunk.


Mrs Phoenix:

Very quarrelsome and abusive when intoxicated, but one of the most decent and nice girls you could meet when sober.


It seems that those who knew her best felt her drinking habits were noteworthy. And given that people are generally reluctant to ‘speak ill of the dead’ I think we can safely assume that Kelly was a bit of a boozer.

But according to Dew, she was not used to drinking, and that was the reason she was hung over when Maxwell saw her. (Incidentally there is at least one report where Kelly tells Maxwell she has the ‘horrors’ of drink, which sounds a lot more serious than a simple hangover.)

My reading of Dew’s rationale for dismissing Hutch’s sighting as being on the wrong day is that someone so unused to drinking is unlikely to have done so on two consecutive days, and since Maxwell clearly got her days wrong, so must Hutch.

[Sam Flynn]

We knew that Marie had been drinking the previous night, and, as this was not a habit of hers

I disagree, actually. Howlers come much more howly than that.

Indeed they do. But, seen alongside the other examples we've cited, this is surely another instance of Dew claiming to be more central to, and knowledgeable about, this world-famous case than he really was. Why should Dew be any different in this regard than many of his contemporaries whose memoirs and reminiscences clearly "big-up" their involvement in events.

[MrBarnett]

We know he was a groom and that he engaged in occasional labour when he found such. We know that he spoke of the "place where I usually stay", meaning that he stayed elsewhere on occasion, all consistent with jumping between jobs and sleeping quarters. We know that he had walked to Romford, quite possibly to work there.

It is by no means a complete list, but it paints a picture of a man with anything but a routinish way of life. And so we cannot write off that this had an impact on how easy or hard it was for him to keep track of the days.

How do we know his labouring was occasional? That he was unemployed at the time doesn’t tell us much about his previous work history. And the fact that he speaks of a ‘usual place’ of residence suggests he didn’t switch lodgings that often. As we know, by 1891 he seems fairly settled in respectable lodgings working for a builder as a plumber.

Did he walk to Romford or just back from there? A man who could provide a photographic description of someone he saw briefly in poor light, who could make his way to/from Romford and shortly afterwards was pursuing a trade doesn’t strike me as the sort of person who didn’t know what day of the week it was.

I’m sure all this stuff has been discussed many times before.

[Fisherman]

If he had mixed up the days - which I don't believe for one minute - then we must accept that Hutchinson had witnessed Kelly's encounter with an unusually dressed and sinister-looking customer clutching a dodgy parcel in the small hours of another morning shortly before her death - how likely is that? Assuming Hutchinson didn't make it up, of course - if he had, why approach the police with an invented story that didn't take place on the morning of the murder? Neither option makes sense.

Because, Gareth, he THOUGHT that it was the morning of the murder. And running into unusually dressed and sinister-looking (?) customers with parcels in their hands is not more likely to happen of Fridays than on Thursdays. Or any other day.

[MrBarnett]

Indeed they do. But, seen alongside the other examples we've cited, this is surely another instance of Dew claiming to be more central to, and knowledgeable about, this world-famous case than he really was. Why should Dew be any different in this regard than many of his contemporaries whose memoirs and reminiscences clearly "big-up" their involvement in events.

This is Dew giving us his suspect based on a misunderstanding of Kelly’s drinking habits. Mere lapses of memory pale into insignificance in comparison.

He is at great pains to impress upon his readers how close he was to Ripper case. He tells us us that even though he was a junior officer, his superiors held him in such high regard that he was privy to all the details of the case.

Oh, and just for good measure, he assures us, his memory is excellent.

[Fisherman]

I think we can safely interpret ‘spreeish’ as meaning excitedly intoxicated?

Here’s what others said about MJK:

Barnett:

When she was with me I found her of sober habits, but she has been drunk several times in my presence.


John McCarthy:

I frequently saw the deceased the worse for drink. When sober she was an exceptionally quiet woman, but when in drink she had more to say. She was able to walk about, and was not helpless.


Mary Ann Cox:

I have often seen the woman the worse for drink.


Julia Vanturney:

Deceased often got drunk.


Mrs Phoenix:

Very quarrelsome and abusive when intoxicated, but one of the most decent and nice girls you could meet when sober.


It seems that those who knew her best felt her drinking habits were noteworthy. And given that people are generally reluctant to ‘speak ill of the dead’ I think we can safely assume that Kelly was a bit of a boozer.

But according to Dew, she was not used to drinking, and that was the reason she was hung over when Maxwell saw her. (Incidentally there is at least one report where Kelly tells Maxwell she has the ‘horrors’ of drink, which sounds a lot more serious than a simple hangover.)

My reading of Dew’s rationale for dismissing Hutch’s sighting as being on the wrong day is that someone so unused to drinking is unlikely to have done so on two consecutive days, and since Maxwell clearly got her days wrong, so must Hutch.

Hm. I haven´t looked at it like that, Gary.
To begin with, if BOTH were out on the dates, then the likeliest thing would be if BOTH mistook Thursday for Friday, in which case Kelly would only be drunk on that one day.

But if we look closer at what Dew says, another possibility opens up:

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.

Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning."

So he speaks of being wrong about either person or time, and he says that if the doctors were right, then Maxwell CANNOT have been correct about person - IF she spoke to somebody on Friday morning, thinking it was Kelly.

Dew hands Maxwell the same clean bill as he provides Hutchinson with, and will not cast doubt on either witness.

Either way, we seem to be left with Kelly likely being affected by alcohol on just the one day. I don´t read Dew as claiming that Kelly could not possibly have drunk two days in a row, and indeed, it would not be a very useful assumption to make.

[Fisherman]

I think we can safely interpret ‘spreeish’ as meaning excitedly intoxicated?

Perhaps so - you are the Brit. But what was said was "Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little spreeish."

So not "spreeish" but "a little spreeish", and she did not seem drunk.

My understanding of it - as a Swede speaking another language than English - was that Kelly seemed to be in a high mood. I don´t exclude that Hutchinson left it open to questioning whether she had drunk alcohol at all, but that he certainly allowed for it.

[Fisherman]

Indeed they do. But, seen alongside the other examples we've cited, this is surely another instance of Dew claiming to be more central to, and knowledgeable about, this world-famous case than he really was. Why should Dew be any different in this regard than many of his contemporaries whose memoirs and reminiscences clearly "big-up" their involvement in events.

There is no "surely" about it at all, I´m afraid.