Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Warren went to GS, saw the graffito, and then gave the nod for it to be scrubbed. It was his 'final descision' but not his primary idea."

I think you will find, Ruby, that I never suggested that it WAS Warrens primary idea. What I said was that the DECISION was one man´s only, and that was Warren.
Small point, but I prefer correct points to incorrect ones, so ...

The best, Ruby
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I’m afraid my observation concerning some of these “dramatic” Sarah Lewis revelations still stands. I’ve been a contributor here since 2005; every fiddly detail pertaining to Hutchinson has been debated and stewed over since then, and yet nobody has ever alluded to Lewis’ “dramatically” divergent accounts. And yes, I still contend that the extant evidence indicates that Lewis wasn’t re-interviewed as a result of her new wideawake description, and that this, in turn, suggests very strongly that that the police either made no note of this alteration (the understandable reasons for which have already provided) or they didn’t consider it significant. Certainly, the addition of “not tall, but stout” doesn’t seem terribly dramatic to me.

Outside Miller´s court at 2.30? "Less attention"??

...Than the other individual described in Lewis’ account, yes. Lewis referred to the man from the Bethnal Green Road a great deal more than she did wideawake, and a Chinese-whispered version of her account was apparently parroted by a “Mrs. Kennedy”, who mentioned the scary man on the Bethnal Green Road, but omitted Mr. Wideawake. This may have been a factor, incidentally, in the ultimate devaluing of Lewis' account along with the class issue outlined by Garry.

“As for my suggestion of a check-up of the Romford trip, I think we can agree that normally, a man that walks all the way to Romford has a reason for doing so. And just as normally, people who walk to Romford with a purpose, will be able to prove that they have been there”

And by the same token, people who lie about going to Romford will not.

Since Hutchinson’s account was subjected to a “very reduced importance” on account of the doubts they had with several aspects of it, it doesn’t seem logical to me that they were able successfully to confirm his presence in Romford, especially if the account was downgraded to “discredited” a couple of days later. A confirmation of the “Romford” angle would result in the account being accorded “increased” importance, surely? Instead, the opposite happened, which must be taken as a sure indicator that no such confirmation occurred.

If I’ve understood your suggestion correctly, we don’t seem to disagree here at all. The police would have sought to do as much “checking up” as they could into Hutchinson’s story, including the Romford detail, but “nothing came out of it”. My sentiments exactly.

I don’t regard the proposed non-recognition of the Lewis-Hutchinson to be anything out of the ordinary for a criminal investigation, the type of which are littered examples of oversights being made, not do I consider it anything other than the parsimonious assumption based on both the existing evidence and the total absence of any indication that such a connection was made. For one reason or another, Lewis was clearly not considered a crucial witness, and it was observed by the Star that the only evidence of any use to the investigation as far as eyewitness sightings were concerned was the Blotchy character described by Mary Cox. The addition of the hugely encompassing “not tall but stout” description is most assuredly not a “major change”.

But you’re right; nobody’s budging on this, and further “Yes they did, no they didn’t” exchanges are obviously futile.

The central observation, as far as I’m concerned, is that the police did not know the truth about the Hutchinson saga, whatever the truth may have been, and whatever doubts or suspicions they may or may not have harboured.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

"…is entirely reasonable, and I agree that the police would have done precisely that – followed up his story as far as they were able to. What bothers me intensely, though, is the inability of others to accept that more often than not, in investigations such as these, the “following up” process does not usually deliver the goods. They can “check” up as far as they can, but the chances are (and the evidence indicates) that whatever they did or did not suspect or notice, the police were never in a position to secure proof one way of the other with regard to Hutchinson."

Totally right !

[QUOTE]

As for my suggestion of a check-up of the Romford trip, I think we can agree that normally, a man that walks all the way to Romford has a reason for doing so. And just as normally, people who walk to Romford with a purpose, will be able to prove that they have been there: if the purpose was to have a coffee, then the coffee-shop owner would probably remember you, if it was applying for a day´s labour, then somebody at the labour site will do so, if you see a friend, then let´s hope that friend has not forgotten you three days later.

I think that Bob Hinton proved all the building work going on in Romford at the time, and that there would be a perfectly feasible reason for Hutch, as a casual labourer , to have gone there.

I have no doubt that the police would have checked out whether Hutch did work in Romford, if he did present himself for potential jobs, and whether he had witnesses for being in lodgings/in the town at all. I'm sure that anything Hutch said, checked out.

Yet the the relatively short distance, with a variety of transport (foot, cart, omnibus, train), and lack of Cameras to concretely pinpoint the man, make me very wary ; it seems potentially easy for someone to to say that they were in one place (and get corroboration), and very quickly be in the other.

A nicely calculated time lapse might give him a few hours to murder and still have an alibi for having been 'out of town' at the time.

[Rubyretro]

Warren himself ordered the erasure of the graffiti, and you will be very much aware that there is STILL an ongoing discussion whether that was a wise thing to do or not! At any rate, it was a one-man decision, Garry, and we cannot judge the whole Met by one man´s decisions, can we.

Not strictly true : Superintendant Arnold told Warren about the GSG , and advised him to have it wiped off. Arnold put forward the reasons why that was advisable, and he already had someone ready and waiting to carry out orders.

It was the most sensible thing to do at the time.

Warren went to GS, saw the graffito, and then gave the nod for it to be scrubbed. It was his 'final descision' but not his primary idea.

It was probably not written by JtR anyway.

[Fisherman]

Ben!

As you and Garry seem to post simultaneously, both timewise and contentwise, I will ask you to read my post to Garry - it answers a good deal of your questions too.

But I will take up a few elements of your own post:

"isn’t it somewhat unusual that in all the Hutchinson threads that have passed since my participation on Casebook, the “dramatic” nature of Lewis’ change in testimony has only be noted now, on this thread?"

I feel very certain that it has been noted numerous times in the past. It is a very evident thing, and the amount of time you have to spend to pick up on it is a matter of minutes. Read the police report, then read the inquest, and there you are.
Of course, these boards contain immense amounts of material, and if you start to read from A, proceeding to Ö (yes!), you may get lost quickly enough. But many people - not least the Met - will have been aware of the glaring discrepancy. It took me five minutes to see, Ben, and I somehow find it hard to believe that I was the first person in 122 years to read up on Lewis ...

"if the police were focussing more on the immediately “suspicious” character in Lewis’ account – the Bethnal Green Road man – it’s somewhat inevitable that the other man mentioned received less attention"

Outside Miller´s court at 2.30? "Less attention"?? No comments!

"I’ve explained my reasons for suspecting that the police made no connection between the wideawake man and Hutchinson, so has Garry, and unless anyone is up for an exciting and repetitive stamina war, I see no reason for going into them again."

It´s a good thing then, that I have explained why I think that you are both very wrong. And you are correct, after that, no need to elaborate further!

"I will reiterate, though, that I’ve never been insistent on this, and have acknowledged the merits of the alternative explanation that the connection was made..."

That is probably very, very wise of you, Ben, that is all I can say.

"…is entirely reasonable, and I agree that the police would have done precisely that – followed up his story as far as they were able to. What bothers me intensely, though, is the inability of others to accept that more often than not, in investigations such as these, the “following up” process does not usually deliver the goods. They can “check” up as far as they can, but the chances are (and the evidence indicates) that whatever they did or did not suspect or notice, the police were never in a position to secure proof one way of the other with regard to Hutchinson."

As for my suggestion of a check-up of the Romford trip, I think we can agree that normally, a man that walks all the way to Romford has a reason for doing so. And just as normally, people who walk to Romford with a purpose, will be able to prove that they have been there: if the purpose was to have a coffee, then the coffee-shop owner would probably remember you, if it was applying for a day´s labour, then somebody at the labour site will do so, if you see a friend, then let´s hope that friend has not forgotten you three days later.
If this was what happened, and nothing came out of it, it would in itself imply that maybe not everything about Hutchinson was what he said it was. So whichever outcome you get from such an investigation, it will affect the thinking of the police, Ben.

"You make the accusation that those who refuse to conjure up scenarios, events, or lost reports must belong to the conspiracy to pin the knife on Hutchinson, when all we’re doing, in reality, is highlighting the total lack of evidence for any of these suggested events, and addressing the perfectly plausible and human capacity for oversight, as demonstrated time and again in criminal investigations"

I do. And I will stand by it. And the suggestion that the connection Wideawake/Hutch was never made, taken together with the proposition of a total inability to pick up what I picked up in five minutes, an inability that was professed by the whole of the Metropolitan police, men that scrutinized and went over witness testimony time and time again, twisting and turning it to see it from every possible and impossible angle ... well, Ben, that never was a perfectly plausible suggestion. Quite the contrary. In fact, to even make the suggestion is exactly the kind of thing that makes me loose faith in any prolonged discussion of this. All the arguments have been made, including a few that I didn´t think would be made at all. So for the moment, I leave the stage to you and your stamina, Ben. I´m sure I will see reason to comment further on the Hutchinson affair in the future too, though.

The very best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"I wasn’t aware that Nairn attended the inquest, Fish"

No? Here you go, Garry:

"Inquest: Mary Jane Kelly
Monday, November 12, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, November 13, 1888)
Yesterday [12 Nov], at the Shoreditch Town Hall, Dr. Macdonald, M.P., the coroner for the North- Eastern District of Middlesex, opened his inquiry relative to the death of Marie Jeanette Kelly, the woman whose body was discovered on Friday morning, terribly mutilated, in a room on the ground floor of 26, Dorset-street, entrance to which was by a side door in Miller's-court.
Superintendent T. Arnold, H Division; Inspector Abberline, of the Criminal Investigation Department, and Inspector Nairn represented the police. The deputy coroner, Mr. Hodgkinson, was present during the proceedings."

...and we know that Beck was there, speaking at the inquest.

"given that Abberline and Beck gave evidence, can we be sure that they sat through the proceedings in their entirety? ... my own feeling is that they would have waited in an ante-room until called to present depositions in the main court. If so, they wouldn’t have even heard Sarah Lewis’s inquest testimony."

Maybe that is correct, Garry - I am not sure how these proceedings took place. One can, though, note that dr Blackwell, during the inquest into Stride´s death, stated that he could confirm dr Phillips on a matter, so he seemingly had heard the latter speak, pointing to at least these two men being dealt with in pair, instead of one by one.

Any which way, that is not the main point here, is it? The four police officers at the inquest as well as the rest of the Met, of course had a duty to gather all vital information, and since the inquest was printed in the papers all over London, the information simply cannot have been overlooked. It´s a complete non-starter as far as I can see.
And I really do not think that the graffiti and the bloodhounds make for any useful comparison at all - Warren himself ordered the erasure of the graffiti, and you will be very much aware that there is STILL an ongoing discussion whether that was a wise thing to do or not! At any rate, it was a one-man decision, Garry, and we cannot judge the whole Met by one man´s decisions, can we. The bloodhound debacle sorts under the same heading, more or less.

But Sarah Lewis! Now that is another thing altogether! If Sarah Lewis sudden recalling that she had a description to offer of wideawake man was something that was completely overlooked, not by one single copper but by all the scores of men that either took part in the inquest or had access to the inquest files - well, Garry, then we are faced with the perhaps greatest ****-up in British police history: They had a description of a man that could have been the Ripper, and they failed to acknowledge it.

No. No, no, no and no again! Please tell me that you are not being serious, Garry!

"I’m similarly puzzled by your contention that Sarah Lewis was viewed as ‘a crucial - arguably the most crucial – witness’."

If I suggest that they had two witnesses (both of them belonging to the same class of society, for that matter), giving evidence at the inquest, that offered descriptions of men that were observed in the very vicinity of the murder site at a time leading up to the most probable time of death on behalf of Kelly, I think you will find it hard to object, Garry.

If I furthermore press the point that Lewis´man was a couple of hours closer to that time of death than Cox´s man was, I likewise think you will agree.

...but when I say that Lewis thus was a VERY crucial witness, and that the timing of her observation means that it can be argued that she was the perhaps MOST crucial witness, you disagree very much. Fine. I just hope that you are not doing the same kind of mammoth error that you believe the police did, Garry?

"As for you insistence that police would have picked up on Sarah’s post-statement description of Wideawake Man, it will be remembered that Hutchinson also embellished his police statement when speaking to the press."

He did, Garry, we both know that. We differ, however, in how we look upon how the police regards things like these.
In Hutchinsons case, you sense that the police would have been very alert in recognizing that there were deviations in his police report and the press articles, and that these discrepancies would have led the police to discredit him. They picked up on all these details, carefully picking up on each little discrepany, albeit they only appeared in a pair of papers - and they acted promptly on it.

But in Lewis´case, it would seem that they never read the inquest files, once they were on their shelves. None did, actually, from the acting commisioner down to the regular PC on his beat. Not a soul took notice of the fact that a major change was made by a major witness in the inquest into the arguably most investigated murder in British history, attached to the highest-profile series of killings that has ever taken place anywhere. It, ehrm, "slipped under the police radar".

I have asked Ben, and I put the same question to you: How do you look upon it yourself? As a trivial thing?

I´m dumbfounded by the very suggestion. But it goes very much hand in hand with what I said about investing too heavily in Hutch, the disguised killer - it would seem such things make people regard the police as a force that was on it´s toes very much when it came to reading up on each little detail in one case, whereas they acted collectively like a flock of blind-folded sheep in another...? I´m sorry, Garry, but it makes for a much more colourful than useful discussion. It´s really not a suggestion that I could ever even begin to embrace, for obvious reasons.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I somehow knew you couldn’t resist a bit of “mud-wrestling” after all, Fish!

“There is absolutely NO evidence at all telling us that the four police officers, Abberline included, that were present at the inquest into Mary Kelly´s death noticed that one of the key witnesses - and there were VERY few of them, saying very little at that inquest! - actually changed her testimony dramatically”

Glad we agree on this, but for something so “dramatic”, isn’t it somewhat unusual that in all the Hutchinson threads that have passed since my participation on Casebook, the “dramatic” nature of Lewis’ change in testimony has only be noted now, on this thread? The more attention you pay to esoteric areas of interest within a case, the greater the chances of seemingly trivial details being invested with the significance that they may have warranted at the time, but which came to be overlooked on account of the fact that the putative "overlookers" in question were a heavily beleaguered police working on every lead associated with the case.

If the police overlooked the fact that Lewis had changed her testimony to incorporate an incredibly generic description, or at least paid it scant attention, it was because they were unlikely to have had records in front of them, at the inquest, of every police report in order to cross reference them with the inquest versions. If they made a note of every single mild contradiction or embellishment, they would have been swamped. In addition, if the police were focussing more on the immediately “suspicious” character in Lewis’ account – the Bethnal Green Road man – it’s somewhat inevitable that the other man mentioned received less attention. There is no evidence that the connection was never made. No police report addressing what you describe as a “dramatic” change in testimony, and perhaps even more tellingly, nothing from the press either, who were normally so quick to pick up on errant witnesses.

I’ve explained my reasons for suspecting that the police made no connection between the wideawake man and Hutchinson, so has Garry, and unless anyone is up for an exciting and repetitive stamina war, I see no reason for going into them again. The parsimonious assumption, given the total lack of evidence, is that they didn’t, in my view. I will reiterate, though, that I’ve never been insistent on this, and have acknowledged the merits of the alternative explanation that the connection was made, and Hutchinson suspected as a consequence. By the way, you say: “if we listen to the medical men involved”? Which doctors suggested a time of death of 3:30ish? Again we have Garry’s sensible suggestion that if the police were swayed by Bond’s 1.00am-2.00am time of death, they couldn’t realistically have considered the wideawake man “quite probably Jack the Ripper”.

“Such a suggestion - that the police would have followed up on his story in order to be able to confirm or dispell it”

…is entirely reasonable, and I agree that the police would have done precisely that – followed up his story as far as they were able to. What bothers me intensely, though, is the inability of others to accept that more often than not, in investigations such as these, the “following up” process does not usually deliver the goods. They can “check” up as far as they can, but the chances are (and the evidence indicates) that whatever they did or did not suspect or notice, the police were never in a position to secure proof one way of the other with regard to Hutchinson.

You make the accusation that those who refuse to conjure up scenarios, events, or lost reports must belong to the conspiracy to pin the knife on Hutchinson, when all we’re doing, in reality, is highlighting the total lack of evidence for any of these suggested events, and addressing the perfectly plausible and human capacity for oversight, as demonstrated time and again in criminal investigations. If Hutchinson’s candidacy as a possible killer were so easy to dismiss, nobody should have recourse to invented, zero-evidence scenarios.

I would suggest agreeing to disagree would be a sensible course of action, but somehow I don't see anyone willing to embrace such a suggestion. So we'll stick with the old rule; the longest post wins the argument.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

I think that the chances that the police would have missed the fact that a crucial - arguably the most crucial - witness suddenly DID offer a description, are completely non-existant. Arnold, Abberline, Nairn and Beck were all at the inquest, remember, and to even think that they would have listened to Lewis without noticing what she actually said ...? What were they doing? Playing Sinking ships? Knitting?

I wasn’t aware that Nairn attended the inquest, Fish, but given that Abberline and Beck gave evidence, can we be sure that they sat through the proceedings in their entirety? Although Stewart Evans would undoubtedly provide a more definitive insight in this context, my own feeling is that they would have waited in an ante-room until called to present depositions in the main court. If so, they wouldn’t have even heard Sarah Lewis’s inquest testimony.

Leaving that aside, however, I am puzzled by your seemingly unswerving faith in the infallibility of Abberline and his investigative compeers. Could this be the same Metropolitan Police Force that expunged the Goulston Street message and became embroiled in the Miller’s Court bloodhound farce?

I’m similarly puzzled by your contention that Sarah Lewis was viewed as ‘a crucial - arguably the most crucial – witness’. Whilst you and I may incline to such a view, Abberline most palpably did not, since unlike Lawende she was never sequestered and her inquest evidence was not withheld ‘in the interests of justice’.

As for your insistence that police would have picked up on Sarah’s post-statement description of Wideawake Man, it will be remembered that Hutchinson also embellished his police statement when speaking to the press. Crucially, he even asserted that he had wandered into Miller’s Court at 3:00am and stood directly outside Kelly’s room. This, of course, placed him at a crime scene at a time critical to Kelly’s death. Was he hauled in for further questioning as would most certainly be the case in any competent modern investigation? Did the police notice the implications of this statement and elevate him to the status of prime suspect? Seemingly not. In which case, I’m not in the least surprised that Sarah Lewis’s subsequent revelations regarding Wideawake Man appear to have slipped under the police radar.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

One reason Hutchinson came forward after Kelly's murder,might be because there was in her case,a stronger association between them than he divulged.He admits giving her money

,

Quite ! Yet another good possible reason for Hutch coming forward after the MJK murder.

I also think it's likely that a previous poster was right, and if Hutch, with his
precarious income DID sometimes give Mary money, then it was unlikely to be from altruistic reasons, and more likely to be because he was a sometime customer.

JtR seems like someone close to his cash to me -carefully taking back the money that he paid the prostitutes (and probably any extra they had on them) and slipping off Annie's rings. So if he WAS Hutch, I don't think that he'd give Mary money for nothing.

Otherwise, I see that the Lewis witness statement is still being thrashed out:
I still don't agree with Garry and Ben that the Police never made the connection, as I think that they'd be far more interested in Wideawake Manif that were the case. I think that they accepted Hutch was the man Lewis saw, accepted that he was there for 'harmless' reasons, realised that he hadtotally embroidered his witness statement but did not think that made him the kiler due to a) the fact that he came forward voluntarily to place himself at Miller's Court b) gut reaction to the man c) testing his reaction to the body c) getting 'character' references from other people -they must have checked him out d) he didn't fit their profile e) they were looking for one killer for all the murders, and maybe they had reason to think that he couldn't have committed the others f) they may have watched him after that, but he never did anything suspicious.

Lewis's statement may be important to us as it cross references Hutch's, and gives ONE reason why he would have come forward, and why the murders then stopped, but whether the Police made a connection between Hutch and Wideawake is not hugely important :
what is important is (IF Hutch was JtR) what HIS reactions might be to Lewis's statement at the inquest, and if there are any believable reasons why he would put himself under the Police and Press 'spotlights' if he were the killer -and I think there are.

Hutch fits the profile of what we now know of Serial Killers, and if we're going to look at suspects close to the case, and not plump for Mr Unknown (my second favourite), in my opinion, he is still the best bet.

It remains a fact that MJK is the last of the C5, so if we ARE going to look for a suspect close to the case (and we know that Serial killers sometimes enjoy involving themselves in their own investigations, so it's perfectly reasonable to do so) and a logical reason why the killings stopped, MJK is a good place to start.

[harry]

One reason Hutchinson came forward after Kelly's murder,might be because there was in her case,a stronger association between them than he divulged.He admits giving her money,which if true,could have been a talking point among Kelly and friends,and so a probable link back to him.He must have reasoned police would be seeking any such association,so coming forward might have appeared a lesser risk than being sought out.
Toppy being Hutchinson,cannot minimise or refute,the information given on 12 November 1888.Had Aberline stated in his report of that evening,or in any later report, that elements of Hutchinson's information had been checked and found to be true,it would lessen suspicion,but Aberline didn't .He offered an opinion ,and as far as can be ascertained,he was the only police official to do so,and it is wrong to say that Hutchinson's honesty was a police belief.It was the opinion of one man only.

[Fisherman]

Hello Ben!

You are astutely, absolutely and completely correct, let´s not take that away from you: There is absolutely NO evidence at all telling us that the four police officers, Abberline included, that were present at the inquest into Mary Kelly´s death noticed that one of the key witnesses - and there were VERY few of them, saying very little at that inquest! - actually changed her testimony dramatically when it came to her description of the man she had seen standing outside Miller´s court on the night of Kelly´s death!
No such evidene is about at all. Therefore, philosophically, it applies that all four of them may have missed it. Correct, my friend - a hundred times correct!

Can I please ask your personal opinion of what it tells us about these senior officers, if they all missed such a thing, at the inquest of the fifth purported Ripper victim, when the demands that the killer was caught were at the very top of the scare? I have noticed over the years that you seem not to believe that the police force on the whole was a bunch of worthless clowns, but maybe the time has come to reasess that now? Let´s hear it, Ben - would it have been gross negligence, not only on behalf of messr:s Abberline, Beck, Nairn and Arnold, but in fact of the Met on the whole, or would it have been nothing out of the ordinary ...?

Actually, what we have by now is you claiming that even if there was no difference in description inbetween Hutch and Wideawake man, the police may well have missed the fact that they had TWO men described doing the same thing at the same place and the same time in a rather suspicious manner, outside Mary Kelly´s sleeping room at 2.30 in the morning - that is to say quite close in time to when she was killed, if we are to listen to the medical men involved. This you think is a very reasonable suggestion, Ben! The best, in fact.

To this, you add that you think that four top ranking officers of the Met sat through the very short inquest into Mary Kellys death, listening to Sarah Lewis´testimony without noticing for a minute that they were suddenly supplied with a description of a man who was quite probably Jack the Ripper.

And to top it off, YOU ridicule ME for suggesting that the police would reasonably have followed up on Hutch´s alleged trip to Romford, and that such an investigation could have turned up a witness that put Hutch in the clear (or for that matter, have turned up no witness at all, in spite of Hutch´s claim to have been down to Romford).
Such a suggestion - that the police would have followed up on his story in order to be able to confirm or dispell it (and I seem to remember that is what the police do when they want to find out about things) you think is something preposterous and laughable to suggest.
And why?
Because I have no proof that the police actually did work by standard procedures in this case - maybe they just swallowed Hutchinsons story and did nothing to check it out. In the murder case of the century.

I´ll say this, and I know it has been said before: the ones who are telling me that the police force was at a complete loss when it comes to see a glaringly obvious connection, and that the same force was unable to hear when a major witness in the Kelly case made a total change of testimony in the most crucial detail of it, are for some unfathomable reason a group of people who have invested very heavily in George Hutchinson being a sinister killer, working in disguise.
And that makes me think that we may have an explanation to the difficulties otherwise completely reasonable people of useful intelligence - and by that I mean all of the ones who are participating on this thread - are having to agree on, for example, that it would be rather a blatant error if the whole of the Metropolitan police missed out on the fact that a key witness made a major change to her story.
One would think that such a thing would be very easy to agree on, but no: instead we are asked to believe that such a thing could quite easily happen. More than so, in fact: it would actually be the exact thing to expect, more or less, and the most credible explanation at hand. And at any rate, nobody can prove that this did not happen, since the Met forgot to present us with a signed document, saying "We actually all missed the fact that Sarah Lewis changed her testimony - sorry ´bout that".
Then again, if they all missed it, how could they produce such a document? Devlishly tricky, is it not?

I´ll wager the explantion that getting too convinced that George Hutchinson was the killer does strange things to people´s judgments.

But I´ll be damned if I can prove it.

The best,
Fisherman
going to bed - for some reason I suddenly feel very tired...

[Rubyretro]

PS Richard -what do you make of the newspaper portrait of Hutch, posted by Garry ?

I know when I was a Toppy-ite, that this sketch really, really, bugged Me.
As another casebook-er put it " it simply does not look like Toppy".

I did try to explain it to myself by 'people change over so many years', and
'newspaper sketches aren't photographs, and it may not be very good', but I
knew in my heart, that those explanations didn't wash.

People rarely change so much that they are totally different to they were in their youth. If anything they grow thicker or flabbier..and only much slimmer if they've got an illness. The Hutch in the picture looks 'stout' and Toppy
finer boned. I don't think that he would change his basic build (unless he had become obese).

Further more the picture doesn't look like a man of 22 -even taking into account the fact that people looked older than we would expect them to today.

What's more, if we compare sketches to photos of the time, the sketches are usually very good.

What do you think ?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Not something else that “must have” happened, but which we have not a scrap of evidence for?

They’re really mounting up now!

Garry made the more than reasonable observation that as far as the police were concerned, Sarah Lewis could not describe the man she saw outside Miller’s Court. This is all contained in the police report of her interview. If this had changed by the time of the inquest, and the account had come to incorporate a new description as a result of her memory suddenly “improving”, and the police had taken note of this, she would have been re-interviewed to account for this inexplicable omission first time around. As Garry points out, however: “neither the surviving police files nor any newspaper report I have ever seen even hint at such an eventuality”, and I really feel his question needs repeating:

Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

It doesn’t sound like you do, but astonishingly; you’re claiming it as FACT that it happened?

Come on, Fisherman; nothing short of insanity is required to come up with not just one but several zero-evidence scenarios that need to have existed once upon the time in order for some of these conclusions to be justified, especially the ones that are supposed to "clear" Hutchinson of any involvement in the crimes.

I’m not saying that none of the police officials were listening to Lewis’ account. I’m suggesting that they would not have had all their police reports in front of them when listening to the inquest evidence, and that it wasn’t possible for them all to have registered every disparity with every witness. It doesn’t bother me all that much if you want to call it a fact that would not have noticed it. It’s an irrefutable fact that it is not a fact at all. With sincere respect, you seem to be having genuine problems with the correct application of the naughty f-word in quite a few of your posts recently.

“the man she had seen (and it would seem she did precisely this), and who, reasonably, stood the best chance of being the Ripper”

Where is this coming from? There was never any suggestion that anyone at the time subscribed to this view. Considerably more attention was paid to blotchy, the Bethnal green botherer, Astrakhan man (ironically, and for a short time!), even Maxwell’s man was inquired about at the inquest, which wideawake wasn’t.

“I will say, however, that these same gentlemen will have been painfully aware of Lewis´shortcomings at her police interwiew, as to what she could remember about wideawake man. And that would have played a role for their interpretation of the suddenly appearing description”

I couldn’t agree more, if, that is, they made note of the suddenly appearing description. Bear in mind that Lewis’ account was to a large extent dominated by the appearance of the sinister individual she reported encountering twice, first on the Bethnal Green Road on the Wednesday prior to the murder, and again at the corner of Dorset Street immediately before she passed wideawake on the night of the murder. It shouldn’t be difficult to see how the former “suspect” could easily have consumed police attention with regard to Lewis’ account(s), with the loiterer receiving scant attention as a consequence.

“but that does not prove it was never done, formally or perhaps more informally, I could not say. Nor can I say whether Lewis and Hutchinson were ever brought together”

Exactly. Which is why it would be so obviously incautious to assume both things did happen, and arrive at conclusions accordingly.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

Listen to this:

"If Lewis provided a description at the inquest that wasn't offered in her police statement, and the police noticed this, they would have reinterviewed Lewis. But we have no evidence of this re-interview, which suggests that this incongruity was never noticed".

Maybe I´m a sensitive sould, Ben. Maybe it´s just me, I really could not say. But my hunch on this thing is that if Lewis told the police that she really had no description to offer regarding the man she had seen (and it would seem she did precisely this), and who, reasonably, stood the best chance of being the Ripper when it comes to dovetailing with the educated guesses on behalf of the medicos, then that would have saddened said police force; it would have been valuable to have a description of the man in question. I think we all agree on that.
Therefore, I think that the chances that the police would have missed the fact that a crucial - arguably the most crucial - witness suddenly DID offer a description, are completely non-existant. Arnold, Abberline, Nairn and Beck were all at the inquest, remember, and to even think that they would have listened to Lewis without noticing what she actually said ...? What were they doing? Playing Sinking ships? Knitting?

You know, Ben, I think I will chance to do something that I know you dislike very much, and call it a fact that they would not have missed this detail. And if they had, the inquest was in the papers, for anyone to read.

I will say, however, that these same gentlemen will have been painfully aware of Lewis´shortcomings at her police interwiew, as to what she could remember about wideawake man. And that would have played a role for their interpretation of the suddenly appearing description - no matter what Lewis came up with, it would have been regarded with great doubt, since it was secondary to the police report.
That is not to say that they would have been disinterested in it. As for a re-interwiew, we have no such information. But that does not prove it was never done, formally or perhaps more informally, I could not say. Nor can I say whether Lewis and Hutchinson were ever brought together, Lewis being asked about whether Hutch was a contender for the wideawake man title - but I do know that it would be the reasonable thing to do. Finally, if that meeting took place, Lewis could have answered anything from "I could really not say" to "Well, I don´t remember much, but it certainly could not have been him".
We lack far too many bits and pieces, some of which we know were once there, some we suspect must have, and some that may or may not have been there. Whichever way, the suggestion that four police officers at the inquest would have missed the detail that a man they knew very well could have been the Ripper, suddenly was equipped with a description - albeit not a very detailed one - goes beyond belief. I actually think you will agree with that, Ben - but I´ve been very surprised before, admittedly.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Mike - I certainly agree with Garry as to the possible reasons for Hutch coming forward as a witness (and someone on Casebook once pointed out that, even if Lewis didn't recognize him as someone from the neighbourhood, if HE recognized HER as someone whom he passed regularly, then that would surely have worried him).

Still, those practical points needn't even be considered if you don't wish.
Because there are also other reasons (and as usual, I don't think one reason excludes another...there can be a mixture..).

Serial killers sometimes like to involve themselves in the investigation of a particular murder to continue to get excitement from that murder, and keep it current in their minds.

If you think that MJK's murder was the one where he finally got some free reign for his fantasisies, and it was the murder where he felt the most satisfaction -maybe involving himself in the investigation was a way for him to keep the high ?

Also, from the way the bodies were posed, and the risks taken, maybe he was feeling very pleased with himself and finally wanted a bit of fame (recognition ?)in the Press ? He could get that fame as a Witness.

Serial killers like to keep 'control' of the investigation too, and feel God like and play with the Police. They think that they are too smart to be caught.

Some Serial killers enjoy sending the investigation in the wrong direction.

Finally (my theory), I think that he probably wanted the anti-Jewish feeling whipped up by the murders, and he hadn't left any 'Jewish' link to MJK's
death. He rectified this by inventing A Man : he could have just said 'foreign appearence' in the first place , but he specified 'Jewish appearence' added a
Hamsa horseshoe, a gold watch (Jews being traditionally associated with gold)and mentioned Petticoat Lane for good measure. I think it was very important to him to establish a 'Jewish suspect'..and he didn't want the Police to keep the description secret, because he liked trouble.

Those are alot of reasons and even if you don't agree with all of them, the remaining reasons are still enough to explain why Hutch would risk coming forward after MJK, and not before.