Hutchinson Content---Moved from MJK crime scene thread

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[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'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.

[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]

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".

[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.

[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.

[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]

Walter Dew's Question.

Well, if Hutchinson did approach a police constable, we have no way of knowing how this encounter transpired. We have next to no information about Hutchinson's character. For what we know he may have had some doubts either way, whether he should contact the police or not. 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. And so, in principle, the motive for contacting the police is unknown, regardless of when he actually did it first. And it is not necessarily true that a police constable would have been removed if he dismissed a witness that was found to be of little value within a few days. Which is not the same as to say we can know why the testimony was, as it may seem, discarded.

I also find it somewhat odd that anyone would put more weight on the lack of any statements about Hutchinson's testimony from some police officials while at the same time showing so little interest in the one comment we do have, even if it was made decades later. To me, that question posed by Walter Dew indicates that there may have been more than one reason why Hutchinson's testimony was, as it may seem, discarded, but that none of them were very obvious: And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also ?

Exactly what kind of "logic" is that ?

Dew's question would seem yet another indication that Hutchinson's testimony was in fact discarded, found to be of little value. That question however, indicates to me that the reason did not seem obvious. Dew's use of Maxwell's mistake to infer that Hutchinson may also have erred is so obviously fallacious and therefore, in my opinion, suggestive of some cognitive dissonance on Dew's part. 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. And all he could come up with was that question ? Nonsense, more or less.

Anyone can be mistaken, that would seem a certain possibility and a fact. But to the extent that there could be any necessary relation between the potential truthfulness of these two witness descriptions Hutchinson's testimony would be the one with a direct influence on the probability - that Maxwell could be right, not the other way around. And instead, Dew made that illogical reversal.

Most importantly however, I'd say, Dew did in fact pose a question. And so, if we do have a genuine interest in the possible reasons, or lack thereof, for discarding Hutchinson's testimony, we should ask ourselves why Dew put the question that way ? And I say it could indicate a feeling of some cognitive dissonance.

Some might argue that Dew may have been ill-informed ? But at the same time we are to believe that Hutchinson's testimony was labelled by the Star as being "discredited" on November 15 already ? And that Dew was well enough informed to be quite certain that Maxwell definitely had "erred" ?

But, first of all, why pose that question at all ? It hardly makes Dew's account of the Ripper murders any more nor less interesting. In fact, if Hutchinson's testimony was, publically, labelled as being discredited, and was known to have obviously been so, why not rather have made a point of that, as it would seem a strong support for Dew's "considered view" that the "blotchy-faced man" was the murderer ? And why that cautionary remark about Mrs. Cox ? To me, by the sound of it, Dew's account seems expressive of some doubt as to whether any one of these two witnesses may have told the truth or not, whereas in the case of Mrs. Maxwell he seems well assured that she was in fact mistaken.

[Ben]

Hi Pilgrim,

Interesting stuff; I think you've quoted this previously on the "old" forums, but just to be clear, Hutchinson never approached a policeman at any stage on Sunday, despite what he claimed. If there was ever any question that a member of the police force anxious to solve the Whitechapel murders should have ignored a witness of Hutchinson's potential importance, he would be identified according to his delineated beat; a fact that the officers on beat knew full well in those days. Hutchinson need only have stated the time and location of the alleged encounter, and the policeman in question would have been hauled over the coals and dismissed for astonishing (and illogical) negligence.

In other words, we can embrace of two scenarios here. Either there was unbelievably callous PC on beat somewhere in the MEPO who ignored Hutchinson despite being fully aware of the consequences of doing so, and was booted off the force, as described in some report or other that went missing or got blitzed (again), or we can accept that Hutchinson made up the "policeman" encounter in an attempt to explain his failure to come forward earlier. Of course, if Hutchinson was truly ignored by this mysterious policeman, why didn't he just go to the station as he was going to eventually anyway?

Ben

[Pilgrim]

Tracy Browne's Detailed Photofit.

While I accept Dan's point that none of us know for certain why Hutchinson was discredited, I think we can safely rule out the possibility that he was discarded purely on the grounds of uncertainty over Kelly's time of death. Even if the police suspected that Kelly may have encountered someone _after_ Mr. Astrakhan, they couldn't prove that was the case, and for that reason, they had every incentive to use Hutchinson in identity parades and so and on so forth *if* they believed his account.

Maybe not to you, but to police, lawyers, judges and juries it makes all the sense in the world, and that's what's important here. And it's not assuming the killer did come along later, it's merely being open to the very real possibility that it could have happened. All Astrakhan Man would need is a reasonable doubt. Even not knowing who he was (and perhaps the police did find out later) there's already a very plausible reason to doubt he had anything to do with it: she could have been killed hours later, and if previous witness testimony is correct she had gone through at least two clients over the space of a few hours and could have been expected to keep that same rate up.

I honestly don't think so, Dan. I don't know of any lawyer, judge or policeman who would endorse the dismissal of evidence purely on the assumption that the witness in question might not have seen the killer.

I suspect Hutchinson's claim that he did try to approach a police constable before Monday 12 could be a most "salient" issue here. And there can hardly be much doubt that this claim, as such, would be well within the realm of the possible, as the scandalous treatment of Tracy Browne during the Yorkshire Ripper investigation clearly show. She was dismissed by a young police constable when she met at the police station to volunteer the perhaps most important and detailed description of Peter Sutcliffe. And she was laughed at even though she had been a victim of a most vicious assault that clearly ought to have made the police treat her testimony with consideration and seriousness. And the dismissal would seem to have been quite unequivocally backed up by the police seniority. Surely, there would be good reason to keep this case in mind when investigating any other crime.

~~~

Tracy Browne got a good look at the man during their walk together and would describe him as having a dark Afro-style crinkly hair and beard, wearing a knitted V-neck cardigan over a light blue open-necked shirt, with dark brown trousers and brown suede shoes. When they reached the gateway to her family's farm he had hung back yet again, and then suddenly she was brutally attacked from behind. "He hit me five times on the head," Tracy said in a Mail On Sunday article, "I heard him grunt like Jimmy Connors serving, each time he struck. I kept saying to him 'Please don't'."

Tracy Browne survived the attack when Peter Sutcliffe was disturbed by an approaching car. Before leaving the scene he threw her over a fence. Covered in blood, she managed to make her way to a caravan about 400 yards from the scene of the attack. Neuro surgeons worked for four to save her life and had to remove a sliver of bone from Tracy Browne's brain.

Tracy Browne recovered, and was able to give a detailed Photofit (see The Photofits) of her attacker, which bore a strong resemblance to Peter Sutcliffe. He was described as having a moustache and beard, staring eyes, and a thin face. Her description of the attacker was confirmed by a witness who came forward and provided a photofit of a dark-haired, beard man, who had been noticed in the neighbourhood that night, and had been seen standing near what was described as a white Ford car (Sutcliffe, at the time, owned a lime green Ford Carpi).

Found near the scene of the attack was a distinctive hippy-style bracelet of wooden beads and a paper handkerchief (the police said the attacker suffered from hay fever, which Peter Sutcliffe did). The Photofit was used in local "wanted" posters after the attack.

Detective Chief Superintendent James Hobson, later in charge of the Ripper Investigation, was in charge of the investigation to find the attacker, and two hundred officers were involved in the hunt, but no progress was made in finding the attacker. James Hobson never linked the attack to the Ripper series. Chief Constable Ronald Gregory explained, in a Mail On Sunday article, why, at the time, the attack was not linked to the Ripper murders: "Tracy was not a prostitute; we thought at the time she was hit with a piece of wood; and all the other attacks were in city areas." Forensic and medical evidence, however, suggested that Tracy was hit with a hammer or similar instrument.

As the Ripper Investigation progressed, Tracy Browne became convinced that the man who attacked her was the same man. After seeing a Ripper Photofit, she went with her mother to the Keighley police station, but a young constable laughed at their suggest that the man who attacked her was the Ripper. Her mother even called her uncle, Mr. Monty Featherman, a local magistrate and personal friend of Chief Superintendent Hobson, but no progress was made to link her attack with the Ripper series. In the article in the Mail On Sunday, her father, Mr. Anthony Browne said: "If they had taken my daughter's account seriously - and released the Photofit - some of the Ripper's victims would be alive." Tracy Browne's Photofit was never re-issued.

The attack was later finally and firmly linked with the Ripper in the review carried out by Mr. Colin Sampson, who later suceeded Mr. Gregory as the West Yorkshire Chief Constable. Sutcliffe was not questioned about the attack on her until after his conviction and he refused to take responsibility for the attack, and challenged the officers to prove it. Finally, in 1992, Sutcliffe did admit to being responsible for the attack on Tracy Browne and on a Bradford Irish student to Chief Constable Keith Hellawell.

The Yorkshire Ripper Website

[Ben]

Now what's the problem?

There never needed to be any hostility in this discussion if you hadn't initiated it. You advanced a couple of suggestions as to why an eyewitness description apparently came to be discredited, and I simply disagreed with them on the grounds that they wholly lacked support and ran contrary to police proceedures. There was never any antagonism, but then all of a sudden I'm on the receiving end of a barrage of unnecessary aggression and....what? You're surprised that I don't take kindly to it? It's most odd. For over a year I never clashed with you over any topic, but come the inception of a new message board, it's like you've made it your New Board's Resolution to lay into Ben.

As for the faintly ludicrous claim that I've "realized I'm in a corner", fine, cling to that if that's your comfort blanket, but it might be just as well to avoid aggressive postings if you don't want to be repaid with same.