Hutchinson Content---Moved from MJK crime scene thread

[Ben]

For what we know he may have had some doubts either way, whether he should contact the police or not. We have next to no information about Hutchinson's character

Granted, Pilgrim, but we don't need to garner any great insight into his character to arrive at the conclusion that the alleged encounter clearly didn't happen. Any policeman working an East London beat in 1888 would have known full well that his identity could easily be established if a member of the public were to recall the time and location of the encounter. The policeman in question couldn't have "got away" with ignoring Hutchinson even if he wanted to, because he'd be fully aware of the consequences. It wouldn't have mattered one bit if Hutchinson's testimony seemed implausible. It was emcumbent upon the police to pursue all leads, no matter how implausible they seemed, and in our policeman's case, this necessarily meant making a note of Hutchinson's description and/or accompanying him to the police station.

And yes, our mischeivious copper certainly would have been dismissed if it were to transpire that Hutchinson had approached the police with his Astrakhan description before he made his official statement on 12th November, irrespective of its content.

If Hutchinson had "doubts" about contacting the police, it would still have been highly illogical to contact a policeman about it and then fail to go to the police station or even approach another policeman (which is what he did the next day anyway!) after realising that policeman #1 wasn't interested. That obvious illogicality can be superadded, if you like, to the existing illogicality of Mr. Mystery PC ignoring Hutchinson for no reason despite the inevitable consequences of doing so.

It might even be argued that both a real witness and a murderer injecting himself into the investigation would have been better served by contacting the police before the inquest, if he was aware that he had been observed outside the crime scene.

Not if the real witness or murderer was unaware (as they would have been) which witnesses were going to be in attendance at the inquest, and whether or not they were going to divulge potentially incriminating details when their turn on stand came.

I haven't personally expressed "little interest" in Dew's comments. In fact, I'd venture a guess that I drew your attention to that extract in the first place. I've certainly mentioned them in conjunction with all the other indications from more senior officials to the effect that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited.

It certainly does give the impression that Dew either did not remember or never was aware of why Hutchinson's testimony was discarded and that he was grasping to suggest some credible reason why he must have been mistaken.

Absolutely, Pilgrim. That's my take on it too. He remembered that Hutchinson was discredited, but couldn't remember why, and so came up with a reason of its own; a reason that isn't likely to be the correct one. Generally speaking, your post has served to illustrate pretty well that Dew is a less than reliable source whose memory become hazy by the 1930s, when he penned his memoirs.

Best regards,
Ben

[Pilgrim]

My last post clearly was off track. But so was this thread before I made my post. Worse, I would say, than before I made it. Beyond that I don't have much to add to the subject of my post, except that I will advice anyone with a serious interest in the subject of it to read it again and compare the content with that of the above post.

[Varqm]

All this explanations about Hutchinson are just beating around the bush.Either George was the ripper or he was a liar. He could not have been the Ripper
and got nervous because the Ripper DID NOT CARE to be seen with a victim before a murder let alone lurking outside a victim's residence. All explanations about this point does not do it .
Except if there is any report that lewis knew hutchinson (something newspapers or even cops would have pursued) or vice-versa , which there were NONE , then I could believe he would come up with some alibi. Otherwise
no chance.

If George was really there and saw what he described , he had nothing to worry about and did not need any reason but just speak like Schwartz or Lawende .
(Although there are all kinds of people...delay because he was afraid of the attention and/or pressure?.. this reason is offset by his outrageous story so that can't be it).

Was he telling the truth . I doubt it. There are a lot in his testimony that does not pass common sense.

So it comes down to, to me, the ripper suddenly had the urge to be in the limelight and played with the police or he was a liar. The former is just too brazen and unrealistic coupled with the kind of public attention the case was under.

I believe he was a common liar. I wish there were more things we could work with.

[Ben]

He could not have been the Ripper and got nervous because the Ripper DID NOT CARE to be seen with a victim before a murder let alone lurking outside a victim's residence

Please don't be ridiculous, VarQ.

You raised this issue three times with the same identical wording on each occasion on the old board, and three times I addressed it. Slightly distressing to see it again for the fourth time. It's a bit ridiculous to claim that the ripper "didn't care" to be seen with earlier victims. How can we possibly know that? Of course he was concerned about being seen - it was an occupational hazard that came with Whitechapel and Spitalfields being both busy and densely populated. He could do nothing about it, but before October 19th he had every reason to believe that the witnesses who had observed had only provided inadequate descriptions. After that date, it had become public knowledge that the police were deliberately suppressing witness descriptions only to appear in full weeks later in the Police Gazette.

Now, if the police used that ploy with the Lawende's evidence, what was preventing them from repeating it at the next inquest?

In any case, he couldn't have come forward as Lawende's or Schwartz's man even if he desperately wanted to. The timing was too tight for anyone to arrive on the scene and dispatch Eddowes' after the Lawende's sighting, and as for Schwartz, well "Yes, I was the man hurling anti-semetic insults and attacking the victim at around the time the doctors believed she died, but no, I left just aftewards, just as Mr. Astrakhan emerged from the gloom"

Hardly plausible.

It doesn't matter what you consider "brazen and unlrealistic". There's certainly a bravado element in thrusting oneself into the limelight. Australian serial killer Ivan Milat wasn't especially concerned that Paul Onions had escaped from his clutches, and that he'd possibly been seen with a gun by passing vehicles, and yet he still inserted himself into the investigation on a seperate occasion and signed a witness description with a "semi"-false name; a witness description that was so unusually detailed that it was initially chalked up to "photographic memory".

[caz]

It doesn't all boil down to The Star, though. All they did was provide the first indication that Hutchinson's account was discredited. It was the subsequent interviews, memoirs and reports from pretty much every senior police official that ultimately vindicated the newspaper's 15th November claim; from Robert Anderson's statement that the only man to have acquired a good look at the murder was Jewish, to Abberline's claim that the reliable witnesses were the ones that had described a "P&O cap" (Lawende and possibly Schwartz) or had acquired a rear view (Long).

Hi Ben,

I've seen this argument of yours several times now and finally I've just got to ask: how on earth does this in any way, shape or form help to elevate Hutch himself to suspect status? Hutch was neither Jewish nor foreign.

Anderson's witness who supposedly acquired a good look at the murderer was a Jew who supposedly refused to testify against a fellow Jew, while Abberline's supposedly reliable witnesses were Lawende and/or Schwartz (possible candidates for Anderson's reluctant witness again) or Long (who thought her man was foreign).

Mr A could have been dropped from inquiries if it turned out Hutch had his nights or times muddled up, or if he admitted to inventing a late night client for Mary out of fear of being suspected himself, or if the police had found Mr A and eliminated him, or had reason to believe the killer didn't arrive until well after Hutch's 3am departure, or for any one of a dozen other reasons. But in any case, if they were happy with a Jewish or foreign ripper who wasn't Hutch's Mr A, it means Hutch was automatically discredited as a ripper suspect as well as a ripper witness.

Either that or you have to admit that their entire reasoning was faulty, in which case you can hardly use parts of it to support your argument.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

I've seen this argument of yours several times now and finally I've just got to ask: how on earth does this in any way, shape or form help to elevate Hutch himself to suspect status? Hutch was neither Jewish nor foreign

No, Caz, you've missed the point most spectacularly here.

Anderson stated the only person to have acquired a good look at the murderer (whether than person was Schwartz or Lawende) was Jewish, not that the suspect in question was Jewish himself. They were talking about the witness(es) being Jewish, not the actual suspect. There was never any indication that Schwartz or Lawende's man was Jewish, and Long's testimony concerning he suspect's ethnicity is all but invalidated on account of the fact that she only gained a rear view of her suspect. She was literally in no position to judge.

Mr A could have been dropped from inquiries if it turned out Hutch had his nights or times muddled up

Unlikely in the extreme given the congruity with Lewis' account. Two independent 2:30am loiterers stationed outside Miller's Court loiterers on the night of 9th November, both watching or waiting for someone to come out is too much of a "coincidence" to take on board.

or if he admitted to inventing a late night client for Mary out of fear of being suspected himself

Which wouldn't lessen the potential for culpability on Hutchinson's part.

or if the police had found Mr A and eliminated him

Absolutely impossible, given the uncetartainly over time of death. They couldn't possibly have "alibied him out" for the murder of MJK even if "Mr. Astrakhan" ran home immediately after Hutchinson alleged to have left the court and immediately found a magical alibi. Still wouldn't wash. Still wouldn't be an alibi.

or had reason to believe the killer didn't arrive until well after Hutch's 3am departure

Which they didn't, and there's no indication, as I've mentioned previously, that the police were necessarily wedded to the notion of a Jewish or foreign killer.

[Varqm]

Ben,
I base my belief/stance based on what the Ripper actually did not on what if,
he could have done this , but maybe this or that, etc..The fact is the ripper was seen by the 3 in Eddowes case and by Long ( near sunrise) both of which were better looks than Sarah Lewis's.Occupational hazards and all the ripper did nothing or anything close to going to the police. The absence of any report or document somewhat proves he did nothing of that sort.There has to be a compelling reason why he changed this time.The only thing that comes to mind is if Sarah lewis or somebody in miller's court knew him then one could believe it. You have to show something, a newspaper report, police document etc. why he would change his mind this time or anything we base something on not based on he may have or he could have.All this other examples of yours of killers interjecting themselves does not mean a thing.These are different cases.You could not put an onus on a person based on somebody else crime.

[Ben]

I base my belief/stance based on what the Ripper actually did not on what if, he could have done this , but maybe this or that, etc..The fact is the ripper was seen by the 3 in Eddowes case and by Long ( near sunrise) both of which were better looks than Sarah Lewis's.Occupational hazards and all the ripper did nothing or anything close to going to the police. The absence of any report or document somewhat proves he did nothing of that sort.There has to be a compelling reason why he changed this time.

VarQ,

You have raised this point now for the seventh time. This will be seventh time I address it. If you disagree with it, provide your reasons by constructing a counter-argument, but don't - for pity's sake - just keep repeating the original point over and over again as though it were never addressed:

You say "There had to be a compelling reason why he changed this time".

Yes, there is:

Before October 19th he had every reason to believe that earlier witnesses had only provided inadequate descriptions based on inadequate sightings. After that date, it had become public knowledge that the police were deliberately suppressing witness descriptions only to appear in full weeks later in the Police Gazette.

Now, if the police used that ploy with the Lawende's evidence, what was preventing them from repeating it at the next inquest?

In any case, he couldn't have come forward as Lawende's or Schwartz's man even if he desperately wanted to. The timing was too tight for anyone to arrive on the scene and dispatch Eddowes' after the Lawende's sighting, and as for Schwartz, well "Yes, I was the man hurling anti-semetic insults and attacking the victim at around the time the doctors believed she died, but no, I left just aftewards, just as Mr. Astrakhan emerged from the gloom". In Long's case, there was never any occasion for pre-emptive action as she'd only acquired a rear view.

Gareth, too, advanced an excellent suggestion:

A stronger reason would be that the killer may have struck on his own doorstep this time. It's scarcely credible that the recent immigrant Schwartz of Ellen Street, or Dalston-based Lawende, both Jews, would have known him by name, and the risk of being recognised by a local gentile would have been considerably greater. Provided, of course, the Ripper lived in the heart of Spitalfields - which, whether he was Hutchinson or not, I'm inclined to believe he did.

If you disagree with these reasons, fine, but don't just go back and repeat the orignal point as though as the reasons were never provided.

All this other examples of yours of killers interjecting themselves does not mean a thing.These are different cases.You could not put an onus on a person based on somebody else crime.

Yes, but I've never claimed that other serial killers doing this or that must mean that Hutchinson did similarly. I'm saying that if - if - Hutchinson came forward because he was the killer and wanted to deflect suspicon away from himself and in a convenient direction by supplying false information, it wouldn't be at all unusual or unlikely given what other serial killers have been known to do.

[caz]

No, Caz, you've missed the point most spectacularly here.

Anderson stated the only person to have acquired a good look at the murderer (whether than person was Schwartz or Lawende) was Jewish, not that the suspect in question was Jewish himself. They were talking about the witness(es) being Jewish, not the actual suspect. There was never any indication that Schwartz or Lawende's man was Jewish, and Long's testimony concerning he suspect's ethnicity is all but invalidated on account of the fact that she only gained a rear view of her suspect. She was literally in no position to judge.

Er, yes, that last bit was one of my points, Ben. You used Abberline's 'reliable' Mrs Long to show that Hutch's account was discredited.

As for Anderson, it's you who appear to have missed his point most spectacularly. According to him, Jack's Jewishness was a definitely ascertained fact, and he didn't hang because the witness who recognised him without hesitation was a fellow Jew and refused to testify against him. If Anderson’s ripper discredits Hutch’s Mr A, he also kicks Hutch out of the frame.

Nuff said, surely?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

You used Abberline's 'reliable' Mrs Long to show that Hutch's account was discredited.

No, I'm pretty sure I didn't, and the fact that Mrs. Long didn't see her man's face doesn't make her "unreliable" in the sense that she lied.

According to him, Jack's Jewishness was a definitely ascertained fact

It only became so to Anderson because a Jewish witness had identified a suspect who happened to be Jewish. It wasn't as though Anderson had decided upon Jack's Jewishness before Kosminski was identified. The more pressing question is why, if Hutchinson wasn't discredited, was Hutchinson himself not invited in to look Kosminski over? Or have I missed your point this time?

Cheers,
Ben

[Varqm]

If only there is a newspaper article which say somebody saw or bought something from or had a drink with hutchinson in leman st. , for example ,then we could perhaps join it with Drews memoirs about Kelly's "beat" stretching to leman st. then we could infer that Hutchinson might have known Kelly. It's tiny ,it's tenous but at least there is a basis.With a lot of arguments for hutchinson as Ripper or possible Ripper all basis are manufactured.

[Varqm]

I'm still waiting for that article.For all we know that day of the inquest was hutchinson's first day in whitechapel\spitalfileds in a month.He was a homeless man from Stepney.

[Ben]

VarQ at 10:14: "If only there is a newspaper article"

VarQ at 01:21: "I'm still waiting for that article."

Be a little patient, VarQ!

I'm not quite sure why you'd be expecting an article that says "I had a drink with Hutchinson on Leman Street"..? Hardly front-page stuff.

Neither Hutchinson's residence nor his approximate length of residence were entirely beyond the realms of "checkability", unlike other aspects of his account. It would either have been a case of "Does a man named George Hutchinson lodge here?", or more likely: "Does this man (presents Hutchinson) lodge here?"

[caz]

Hi Ben,

(Sigh)

I'm not trying to argue that Abberline and Anderson didn't consider Hutch's account as a witness discredited. All I am asking is why you keep using their favoured witness sightings to argue that they rightly discarded Hutch's Mr A, when the same cops must have been completely wrong in your view for not also discarding Mrs Long's Mr F (for foreign - never mind if she could not have known any such thing - she obviously didn't recognise him as an Englishman) and the Mr J (for Jewish) seen by Anderson's witness. As sure as eggs are eggs Anderson never deviated from his conclusion that Jack would turn out to be a low class Jew, and he believed his star witness had proved him right on that score.

You may as well chuck their favoured witness sightings in the Thames for what good they can do you, because Mr A being sent packing in favour of a possible Mr F or a Mr J doesn't help you put a man who was neither foreign nor Jewish - your very own Mr H - in the necessary position to have been spotted with a victim.

Is that any clearer for you now?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Is that any clearer for you now?

Perfectly thankyou, and it wasn't necessary for you to "(sigh)" in light of my previous acknowledgement that I may have misunderstood your original point.

The fact that Mrs. Long had only acquired a rear view of her suspect doesn't detract one iota from the likelihood of her having seen Chapman's killer. I've never suggested that Anderson's belief in Jack's Jewishness had anything to do with any witness evidence that came to the fore before the Kosminski identification (especially not Liz Long's), and it wouldn't have mattered if Anderson's witness hadn't singled him out as Jewish beforehand. Indeed, it appears that the witness only became aware of Kosminski's Jewishness after he had made the identification, which was two years after the initial sighting.

If the witness was Lawende, for example, and he thought at the time that the man seen with Eddowes had a conspicuously Jewish appearance, then yes, Hutchinson wouldn't emerge as the best candidate for Mr. Red Neckerchief, but that clearly wasn't the case. Indeed, it appears the same witness singled out the thoroughly Gentile William Grant Grainger at a later date.

Best regards,
Ben