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

[Batman]

I used to think he could have been, but not any more.

The important question is if they knew each other. That would be the first thing to look at.

[Sam Flynn]

Flemming does fit that scenario very well.
As does hutch.

Of course some say he was the same person.

I used to think he could have been, but not any more.

[Abby Normal]

The geoprofile also puts Tabram into the picture. I go with Sugden on her inclusion.

Barnett doesn't fit here. He is living with Kelly around April through to the start of November, nine days before her murder. Too close.

Joseph Fleming meets the criteria much better.

Why is there so little about him out there?

Flemming does fit that scenario very well.
As does hutch.

Of course some say he was the same person.

[Batman]

From 2004. Is that the most up to date research on Fleming?

I doubt it would be with the magazines that are out there with so many articles, but I can only grab what I can find for now.

[MrBarnett]

Yes, you are.

Thanks, Fish.

Presumably he got into that work through his father, possibly working alongside him in his early teens.

How/when on earth did he become a groom, I wonder?

[MrBarnett]

https://www.casebook.org/ripper_medi...h-fleming.html

From 2004. Is that the most up to date research on Fleming?

[MrBarnett]

As I said before, I find it interesting how Dew seemingly puts little trust in Cox.

But what value is there in saying in one sentence that he believes blotchy killed Kelly and then in the next to throw doubt on whether blotchy even existed? It sounds like he was just sucking his pencil and guessing.

Cox was someone who probably did lead a chaotic lifestyle.

(At the inquest Cox actually stated that blotchy’s chin was clean shaven. Dew gave him a beard.

He also calls St Katherine Creechurch, St Katherine Free Church)

[Batman]

Very detailed

https://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/castofthousands.joseph-fleming.html

[MrBarnett]

I reacted to how Gareth spoke of "howlers" on Dews behalf, and I think it is an unfair assessment of his work. As such, it can never be excluded that there are errors in any account, and that goes for what Dew had to ay about Hutchinson too - but what he said is in line with what the papers and Abberline expressed, and it therefore becomes of interest since there are no other assessments of Hutchinson in biographies and such.

Circumspection - I´m all for it. Dumping - no.

Yes, Hutch is painted as a plausible witness by the police, and if he was Toppy he doesn’t appear to have been someone who lived an especially chaotic lifestyle. So I have a problem with the idea that he got the day wrong, particularly as Romford Market would have given him a point of reference.

[Fisherman]

Last post on Dew (from me). This is his retrospective copper’s hunch concerning the MJK witnesses:

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man.

As I said before, I find it interesting how Dew seemingly puts little trust in Cox.

[Fisherman]

Am I right in thinking that by 1891 Toppy was living in a small and seemingly respectable lodging house in Warren Street and working as a plumber?

Yes, you are.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

You have been hassling Gareth for a full list. There are many small errors in Dew’s account, and there’s no reason to exclude the possibility that there may be some in his account of the Hutchinson story.

Sources like Dew, Leeson, and that old spoofer Arthur Harding, are fascinating, but they should be viewed with a great deal of circumspection.


Gary

I reacted to how Gareth spoke of "howlers" on Dews behalf, and I think it is an unfair assessment of his work. As such, it can never be excluded that there are errors in any account, and that goes for what Dew had to ay about Hutchinson too - but what he said is in line with what the papers and Abberline expressed, and it therefore becomes of interest since there are no other assessments of Hutchinson in biographies and such.

Circumspection - I´m all for it. Dumping - no.

[MrBarnett]

Am I right in thinking that by 1891 Toppy was living in a small and seemingly respectable lodging house in Warren Street and working as a plumber?

[MrBarnett]

Last post on Dew (from me). This is his retrospective copper’s hunch concerning the MJK witnesses:

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man.

[MrBarnett]

The overall impression is nevertheless that he got most things right, a decent enough achievement at his age and with so long time passed. To simply discard him as a source would be very wrong - even if what he says sometimes does not fit our own thoughts...

Anyway, I think that should do for now when it comes to Dew. The thread has another aim than to cheer/pooh-pooh him.

Fish,

You have been hassling Gareth for a full list. There are many small errors in Dew’s account, and there’s no reason to exclude the possibility that there may be some in his account of the Hutchinson story.

Sources like Dew, Leeson, and that old spoofer Arthur Harding, are fascinating, but they should be viewed with a great deal of circumspection.


Gary