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

[Wickerman]

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.

Oh, it is easily explained.
Women had no legal standing in Victorian society. Women were not even citizens. For a man to make no mention of seeing a woman is perfectly in keeping with the times.

Women were everywhere in the streets day or night, especially lower class women which Lewis may have been given their encounter on the previous Wednesday (accosting a man), plus she was entering a court known to be the haven of prostitutes.
Lewis & Kennedy may have been part-time prostitutes. Hutchinson not mentioning a 'loose-woman' passing on the other side of the street is not out of the ordinary at all.

[Wickerman]

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?

c.d.

Simply put, those trained professionals knew more about what Hutchinson saw than we do, c/w the fact they dealt with suspicious behavior every day.
Critiques of Hutchinson are trying to put together a jig-saw puzzle with half the pieces missing. Which is why their arguments are so full of holes.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

This was a Wednesday newspaper reporting a statement made last evening [Tuesday].

You're suggesting it was a actually a Tuesday story reporting a statement made last evening [Monday].

This cannot be, because on Monday evening the only people who heard this statement were the police.

The story didn't become public until Tuesday.

Nice try.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Oh, it is easily explained.
Women had no legal standing in Victorian society. Women were not even citizens. For a man to make no mention of seeing a woman is perfectly in keeping with the times.

Sorry, Jon, I still don't buy this. It strikes me that it would have been perfectly natural - and usefully corroborative - for Hutchinson to have reported seeing a woman approach and enter Miller's Court whilst he was on his watch.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Jon, I still don't buy this. It strikes me that it would have been perfectly natural - and usefully corroborative - for Hutchinson to have reported seeing a woman approach and enter Miller's Court whilst he was on his watch.

I agree - especially since he qualified himself by adding that further to the pc and the lodger he saw nobody else. So it´s not just about omitting as Jon suggest, it is effectively about denying!

The better guess is that Hutchinson and Lewis never saw each other on the murder night.

[Batman]

Hutchinson's was probably a voyeur who caught a glimpse of JtR with MJK, only not the way he completely described. Which is why his story has oddities. He just didn't want to reveal he was a peeping tom.

During the investigation into the Monster of Florence (another lust murderer), investigators literally beat the bushes around lover's lanes out in the country and turned out a whole slew of peeping toms that even had a club going where they would reveal looking spots out to each other.

Hutchinson comes across like such a person. He probably was there for own sexual satisfaction, went up the court and had himself a look in the window and caught a glimpse of MJK with her client and that's where his description comes from.

[Fisherman]

I probably didn't word my original post as well as I should have. If we go with the assumption that the police never viewed Hutchinson as a suspect we have to ask ourselves why? I find it extremely unlikely (although not impossible) that they didn't find his story and his actions suspicious. That would have made him a person of interest. But it seems that he never became a serious suspect. My guess is that their investigation (and I am assuming there was one) somehow cleared him so that an identification by Schwartz and or Lawende was not necessary.

Yes, I know that is a lot of assumptions but I refuse to believe that the police were really that inept.

c.d.

When we decide what we find suspicious, we will judge that against our own backgrounds and patterns of behaviour. I think the idea that the police were inept rests against how we (or some of us, at least) believe it was a strange thing to do, to stay outside Kellys room for 3/4 of an hour.

But what if it was NOT strange or unusual back then? We know that the victorians treated women in another manner than we do today, basing it on ideas of chivalry and courtesy and so on.

What I am thinking is that if Abberline believed in Hutchinson, that may well owe to how he himself could have done the exact same thing if he had seen a woman he knew enter a house with a man that he didn´t know and perhaps thought seemed a possibly sinister character.

It is only when a thing like this is regarded as odd by the surrounding society that the police becomes inept for not recognizing it. If it was NOT regarded as odd by the surrounding society, the rules of the game change.

Personally I don´t think it a very odd thing at all - then again, I may be a tad oldfashioned.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Once the initial excitement over Hutch had died down. I am sure the police would have started to correlate evidence and one of the questions they would have asked is "Did you see anyone go up the court", to which Hutch gives no indication that he did, when he obviously should have done if he was the man seen by Sarah Lewis.

[Michael W Richards]

I think that the person who identified himself as George Hutchinson just assumed the role of Wideawake, with the intention of having his story negatively affect the search for suspects. After his statement 4 days later there was less suggestion of Accomplices, despite the fact that the day after the murder a Pardon for anyone in that role is offered.

With good, old, friend of the victim George just looking out for her we must then look elsewhere for the culprit.

I believe that throughout that weekend there was a belief that this was not a one man show. Too poor an escape route to not have an assistant. I thought it would be good drama if the man in the room with Mary is Joe, and Wideawake is Daniel, but I don't think so. That would have given us the evil triumvirate.

But on that vein, could it be that Hutch knows the man that was there and either volunteered or was coerced into taking his place?

[Busy Beaver]

But on that vein, could it be that Hutch knows the man that was there and either volunteered or was coerced into taking his place?

Depends on how much Hutch feared for himself, if this dude was a shady character. But then if Hutch knew MJK as he claimed he did, would he really let someone literally get away with her murder? Assuming that wideawake man could be the culprit?

[Abby Normal]

lets look at Hutchinson on what is most likely, given all we know, about him:

In all likelihood he was just an attention seeker like Packer and Violenia. It would explain all the discrepencies and concerns.

Why he didn't come forward until after the inquest.
The ridiculous detail and script like movements of the characters.
The straight out of Hollywood casting bad guy.
The assuredness that he could ID him again.
Why he was dropped as a serious witness (eventhough he should have been, by far, the best witness).
Going to the press.
The major changes in his story.


He went to marys, probably looking for a place to crash and or get lucky with her, probably never even saw her, waited outside her place (like he said) for her return or her client to leave. Got tired of waiting around after a while and left. After finding out she was murdered that night and after a few days of thinking about it, what his story would be and for the inquest to be over he decides to try and make the most of it.


Lets face it-in all probability he was looking for his 15 minutes of fame and somehow to profit off it and was nothing but a worthless attention seeker.

[Batman]

Why he didn't come forward until after the inquest.

The answer here is because he realizes he has been seen and wants to explain himself now. We are almost guaranteed that there are plenty of other characters who are not JtR who were never found.

How did Hutchinson learn he had been seen is the question. It can't be the inquest account in papers as that came later on.

The ridiculous detail and script like movements of the characters.
The straight out of Hollywood casting bad guy.

Best & Gardener also gave very detailed descriptions for JtR down to the colour of eyelashes.

Why would Hutchinson make up such a character when all he had to copy was what was said in the papers about JtR's description?

Would JtR not switching up his appearance be in-line with what he should be doing given the descriptions of a shabby gentile and a sailor were out there and popularized?

The assuredness that he could ID him again.

I am not sure how this works against him.

Why he was dropped as a serious witness (eventhough he should have been, by far, the best witness).

I don't think he was dropped. I think investigators split on the issue and Abberline took up Hutchinson and Swanson/Anderson took up Lewende.

Going to the press.
The major changes in his story.

Obviously, these don't work in his favor but aren't falsifying factors either. Witnesses who we know from other cases who are credible, change their stories because human memory is not a time machine.

[Abby Normal]

The answer here is because he realizes he has been seen and wants to explain himself now. We are almost guaranteed that there are plenty of other characters who are not JtR who were never found.

How did Hutchinson learn he had been seen is the question. It can't be the inquest account in papers as that came later on.



Best & Gardener also gave very detailed descriptions for JtR down to the colour of eyelashes.

Why would Hutchinson make up such a character when all he had to copy was what was said in the papers about JtR's description?

Would JtR not switching up his appearance be in-line with what he should be doing given the descriptions of a shabby gentile and a sailor were out there and popularized?



I am not sure how this works against him.



I don't think he was dropped. I think investigators split on the issue and Abberline took up Hutchinson and Swanson/Anderson took up Lewende.



Obviously, these don't work in his favor but aren't falsifying factors either. Witnesses who we know from other cases who are credible, change their stories because human memory is not a time machine.

Hi Batman

The answer here is because he realizes he has been seen and wants to explain himself now. We are almost guaranteed that there are plenty of other characters who are not JtR who were never found.

How did Hutchinson learn he had been seen is the question. It can't be the inquest account in papers as that came later on.

He was staying at the Victoria home, a stones throw from the murder site. Barnetts brother was also staying there. If he was concerned about being seen he could have very well heard about it here.

Best & Gardener also gave very detailed descriptions for JtR down to the colour of eyelashes.

Not even close to hutchinsons account, which none of the other witnesses describe in such detail either.

Why would Hutchinson make up such a character when all he had to copy was what was said in the papers about JtR's description?

that's exactly what he did:

the general description
carrying knife sized parcel
red hanky
american cloth thrown in for good measure
jewish
and the added surly looking and curled up mustache for villanous flair.

He even cribbed verbatem from the papers actual wording-"the murdered woman Kelly" etc. (someone actually did a side by side comparison of press accounts and hutchinsons statement-its amazing how much he used).

I am not sure how this works against him.

Because NONE of the witnesses were this self assured and kept emphasizing the point. Its obviously a ploy to get the police to believe he was a great witness and could help them catch the ripper.

I don't think he was dropped. I think investigators split on the issue and Abberline took up Hutchinson and Swanson/Anderson took up Lewende.

On the contrary-Abberline never mentions him again, he was never used as a witness to ID anyone. Theres articles in the press soon after that his story was discredited. The only mention of him again is by Dew, who thinks he might of got the day wrong-not a glowing review of him as a good witness is it?

Obviously, these don't work in his favor but aren't falsifying factors either. Witnesses who we know from other cases who are credible, change their stories because human memory is not a time machine

Apparently hutchs memory was. He went to the press a few days later and pretty much nailed everything again. Oh but this time he adds he went and stood outside her door, something left out in the police interview. A major change-indicating he now knows exactly where mary lived. Considering his stellar memory, and something so important- he would not have forgotten about.

and changing ones story is falsifying-packer was dropped as a credible witness for this same exact reason.

[Sam Flynn]

Would JtR not switching up his appearance be in-line with what he should be doing given the descriptions of a shabby gentile...

Shabby-genteel. There's a big difference!

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shabby-genteel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gentile

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

This was a Wednesday newspaper reporting a statement made last evening [Tuesday].

You're suggesting it was a actually a Tuesday story reporting a statement made last evening [Monday].

This cannot be, because on Monday evening the only people who heard this statement were the police.

The story didn't become public until Tuesday.

Nice try.

Regards,

Simon

Yes Simon, there are two stories, both coming from Hutchinson. Version one given to police on Monday evening, version two given to the Central News reporter sometime on Tuesday. Though the stories are essentially the same, from the same source.
This is all well known.

The original source for this second version can be read in the Daily News or Times, on Wednesday morning, where both papers added....

"The description of the murderer given by Hutchinson agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday morning."

They were referring to this:
"The police yesterday evening received an important piece of information. A man, apparently of the labouring class, with a military appearance, who knew the deceased, stated that on the morning of the 9th inst. he saw her in Commercial-street, Spitalfields (near where the murder was committed), in company with a man of respectable appearance. He was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with a black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His appearance contrasted so markedly with that of the woman that few people could have failed to remark them at that hour of the morning. This description, which confirms that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police."

So, I am at a loss to understand why you call version two B.S.
The original release (above) had no source. The newspapers wrote that this second version confirmed this unsourced version given to police on Monday.

I agree 'confirmed' was the wrong word to use, but it is understandable given the fact the source was unnamed in the Tuesday morning press release (of the Monday evening statement).
So why is it B.S.?