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

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm,

Why do you think this is stretching things too far?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Evening News,Daily News November 14

On his statements on November 13,reported above,he made it "clear",to those "paying attention",when he said "saw no one else",that
the early morning of his story was not the same as when the woman (Lewis)walked down Dorset St. and into Miller's court.
It was just a one day "ride",November 12-13,then he exposed his story for those "paying attention'.But he did nothing "illegal",just one
of the kinds of witnessess mentioned by Supt. Foster in Star Oct.2.The inquest was finished so there was no possibility of a "fine".
So a one day "police" operation" does not look to me as something that made/makes sense.Why not longer? Abberline's letter (Nov. 12)
meant he was not on the"operation"?
The basic story of the case should be re-written without Schwartz and Hutchinson and with the dates of the murders (C5) very significant.

-----

[Simon Wood]

Hi Varqm,

Evening News, Wednesday 14th November 1888—

ANOTHER STATEMENT CONFIRMING ONE MADE ON MONDAY

The following statement was made yesterday [Tuesday] evening by George Hutchinson, a labourer

Read that carefully. Hutchinson was corroborating himself.

It's BS.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

It only takes Hutchinson and/or Lewis's timings to be out by a couple of minutes. He doesn't say he was standing "over against" Crossingham's, and he doesn't say he saw Lewis. To me, this is a huge minus against Hutchinson being there when Lewis entered Miller's Court.

Hutchinson says he watched Kelly and her man in Commercial Street on their way to Miller's Court, and Lewis said she saw a man and woman at the corner of Dorset and Commercial Street as she passed them en route to the Keylers. If the couple outside Ringers included Mary Kelly, then she had not yet got home; the man standing "over against" Crossingham's thus could not have followed Kelly and her man to Miller's Court and, ergo, he was not Hutchinson.

Hi Sam

It only takes Hutchinson and/or Lewis's timings to be out by a couple of minutes.

I went back and checked both their statements. hutch said he saw mary and Aman around 2:00. Lewis saw the commercial street couple(which included the bethnal street botherer) about 2:30. so they would have to be off way more than a couple of minutes-the discrepancy is a total of 30 minutes. Both said they fixed the time with clocks also. and hutch also fixed his time when he left dorsett st by a clock at 3:00.


Not only that, but lewis said she hurried past the commercial street couple and "looked back" at them after she passed them.


so both their statements actually corroberate that hutch was standing there waiting and watching as lewis passed into Millers court around 2:30. other than of course hutch not mentioning seeing lewis of course, but I think we can all come up with some reasons why he didnt.

so clearly all the evidence, the timings the witnesses give and sequence of events etc. point to it was hutch standing there, and he was the waiting/watching /wideawake man seen by lewis.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Abby. It was a nice idea while it lasted.

However, the fact that Hutchinson didn't see Lewis enter Miller's Court when she would have been fully in his field of vision for rather a long period of time just doesn't add up. Either he was very wrong in his timings, or he simply wasn't there.

[Batman]

Thanks Abby. It was a nice idea while it lasted.

However, the fact that Hutchinson didn't see Lewis enter Miller's Court when she would have been fully in his field of vision for rather a long period of time just doesn't add up. Either he was very wrong in his timings, or he simply wasn't there.

One thing I do like about Hutchinson's description is that he didn't try to describe any of the other witness descriptions.

No sailor looking chap.

No shabby gentile.

A rather wealthier looking chap dressed to the nines.

If JtR was aware of witnesses descriptions, then he went ahead and tried dressing the opposite.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Abby. It was a nice idea while it lasted.

However, the fact that Hutchinson didn't see Lewis enter Miller's Court when she would have been fully in his field of vision for rather a long period of time just doesn't add up. Either he was very wrong in his timings, or he simply wasn't there.

or he was there and intentionally didn't mention her.
or he somehow missed seing her eventhough they were both there.
or he did see her but forgot he saw her.


ive always thought the bethnal green botherer is an intriguing character-he seems to match up not only in some ways to descriptions of other witnesses but in his tone and kind of cocky/joky demeaner. and of course he just acted suspiciously-frightening the women, trying to get one to go with him.

the way lewis described him reminded me of Marshalls man and his "you would say anything but your prayers".


however, he just dosnt seem to logistically fit into being with Mary that night.

[Sam Flynn]

or he was there and intentionally didn't mention her.
or he somehow missed seing her eventhough they were both there.
or he did see her but forgot he saw her.

None of those seem particularly compelling. He saw a man enter a lodging-house, he saw a policeman stroll past the junction of Dorset/Commercial Streets, but he missed/forgot/failed to mention a woman who walked right in front of him and entered the archway to Miller's Court - an archway he was monitoring closely, standing at or even standing in? Doesn't seem likely at all.

[Abby Normal]

None of those seem particularly compelling. He saw a man enter a lodging-house, he saw a policeman whizz past the junction of Dorset/Commercial Streets, but he missed or forgot about the woman who walked right in front of him and entered the archway to Miller's Court - an archway he was either monitoring closely or actually standing near or even in? Doesn't seem likely at all.

yeah I know-which is why I think he intentionally left her out.

[Sam Flynn]

yeah I know-which is why I think he intentionally left her out.

Again, why would he do that? Whether witness or killer, why would he omit to mention a point that could only corroborate his story?

[Abby Normal]

Again, why would he do that? Whether witness or killer, why would he omit to mention a point that could only corroborate his story?

if he was a killer-he didnt want to mention her, because her seeing him was probably the reason he came forward. and so he didnt want to tip his hand in any way to the plice.

if just a witness-I really cant come up with any reason if he was just an honest witness why he wouldnt mention her if he saw her-she would corroberate his story as an honest innocent witness. even if he was just an attention seeker, you would still think he would mention her. which is why his omission of seeing her actually points to him being the killer.


now that being said, gun to head, I think more than likely hutch was just an attention seeker, who was there that night waiting, but he lied about aman and probably actually never saw Mary that night.

[c.d.]

Hi cd
I think they probably just considered him another atten seeker ala packer and violenia.

Hello Abby,

But that really doesn't make a lot of sense. How could trained professionals not pick up on the suspicious behavior that seems so abundant to us?

If I had to guess (and that is all it is) I think he might have eventually confessed to being an attention seeker or seeking reward money. He provides an alibi for that night which checks out and he is no longer on the radar.

c.d.

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm,

Evening News, Wednesday 14th November 1888—

ANOTHER STATEMENT CONFIRMING ONE MADE ON MONDAY

The following statement was made yesterday [Tuesday] evening by George Hutchinson, a labourer

Read that carefully. Hutchinson was corroborating himself.

It's BS.

Regards,

Simon

I might be missing something but it's saying it corroborates what was furnished by the police yesterday on the 13,same day.Like what Schwartz did,statement to the police 1st then press where they then showed their "misadventure". This press statement was more detailed? He could not possibly remember the details so it was a rehearsed statement?I do not get it.

---

One of the biggest ineptitude was if they chosed Lawende as a witness before the case closed in 1892 because to them it was reasonable or made sense.I do not think the police or anybody were that "dumb",Lawende said "I doubt it" and "Oh,no" if he could identify the sailor man again.
They needed a better witness.There must have been a solid reason,most reasonably they could not find a better witness.It "baffles" me why theydid not take Mary Ann Cox seriously enough,make drawings/sketches,walked around the district,etc.,she was the only witness in the whole C5 inquests who could identify the "man" again.The Star already said so:

The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. THURSDAY, 15 NOVEMBER, 1888.

As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room.

---

[Batman]

I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. - Abberline.

It all hinges on that. I would think this would have been considered one of the foremost serious moments of the case. The breakthrough that they needed. Hutchinson seems to indicate that he can recognize the person again and has seen them up close. Maybe Abberline was too quick to seize what he thought was an opportunity, but maybe not. Maybe Abberline having heard enough stories in life decided that this witness was telling the truth. Maybe he did check out. If that is the case, then it is the most accurate description of JtR that we have.

Furthermore, why would Hutchinson make up such a lavish JtR? Yes, he does say of ... "Jewish appearance. Can be identified..."... but he could say that without making him look like a wealthy toff. Yet here is JtR looking like one.

Does nobody think it a little odd that Hutchinson if lying wouldn't try to go for the sailor look or shabby gentile? Yet he goes for this out of the blue reversal of character. It was if JtR was changing how he looked because of press reports.

[Wickerman]

Hi Varqm,

Evening News, Wednesday 14th November 1888—

ANOTHER STATEMENT CONFIRMING ONE MADE ON MONDAY

The following statement was made yesterday [Tuesday] evening by George Hutchinson, a labourer

Read that carefully. Hutchinson was corroborating himself.

It's BS.

Regards,

Simon

I've never understood this argument.
The Evening News published a report that was first seen in the morning papers. I'm sure you know that stories appearing in the morning press were obtained the day or evening before. Therefore, a Wednesday morning story was written Tuesday night.

The Wednesday morning story began:
"The following important statement was made last evening by George Hutchinson,..."

Last Evening, being Monday.
Therefore, when the Evening News republished the Wednesday morning story on Wednesday evening they didn't change "last evening", which seems to be why you think they meant Tuesday.

From this misunderstanding you suggest Hutchinson was confirming himself?

[Roy Corduroy]

If the police had no reason to consider Hutch as a suspect then why does practically everyone on these boards consider his story and behavior highly suspicious?
c.d.

Practically everyone on these boards considers his story and behaviour highly suspicious because it's so easy to post up in the George Hutchinson Suspect threads. Exactly as we are doing here, on the George Hutchinson Suspect thread you started.

For one thing, Casebook makes it easy to create a George Hutchinson Suspect thread here on the Message Board by placing the giant arrow says George Hutchinson at the top of the Witnesses Section, so one would have to avoid that to make a George Hutchinson Witness thread. It's easier just to go with the flow and do as you did c.d. and make a George Hutchinson Suspect thread instead. It's a piece of cake.

And because it is easy to follow along on the George Hutchinson Suspect threads which are right at the very top of the Message Boards. You can't miss them. So just join in. If I'm riding the subway I'm not going to take the line all the way to the last stop, to Hooterville. No I'm going to get off at the Metro stop coming right up where there's a Starbucks, a Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream shop, and that yummy Chili's resturant for some ribs or a burger - my choice.

I understand Bob Hinton wrote a book in which he posited George Hutchinson as a ripper suspect, buy why on earth would I need to track it down, because it must be out of print by now, ... track it down and actually read it. There's no need to at all because it's so easy to get my George Hutchinson ABC's from the multitude of George Hutchinson Suspect threads on Casebook.

There is one poster here who recently returned to Casebook and announced he was here for the express purpose of keeping the George Hutchinson Suspect threads alive and and kicking forever and to infinity and beyond. And he's done a pretty good job of it. Fisherman kept the George Hutchinson threads going until he found his own Hutch, in the person of Lechmere. Gawd, the list goes on of devoted posters on George Hutchinson Suspect threads. And you know what - I don't begrudge them their due one bit. I say go for it. Maybe one day we'll get to the bottom of this thing. This George Hutchinson thing that has everyone so enthralled. We can try anyway.

Just your average poster can come here, get a little of the Hutch talk and lingo under his belt, and feel confident about posting on a George Hutchinson Suspect thread. It has become a Comfort Zone here for many people through the years and right up until this moment.

So yes, that's why. It's so easy to find him suspicious on Casebook. Here. At this place. Because everybody does it so why not. I'm not going to go to MacDonald's and order sushi. I'm not going to go to a sushi bar and order a Whopper with Cheese.

In America everybody drives on the right side of the road. In the United Kingdom everybody drives on the left side of the road. But here all roads lead back to George Hutchinson, Ripper Suspect.

That's why, c.d.

Roy