A closer look at George Hutchinson

[c.d.]

In case you cant see a relationship that exists between both of these individuals, both were "believed" by Abberline and neither had their evidence presented to a jury.

Can Fanny Mortimer be added to that list?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

You’re just typing words that have no basis in fact.

This isn’t about your ‘opinion.’ It’s the Coroners Act. I give up. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and your ‘conclusion’ is meaningless and based solely on your desire to denigrate Schwartz to bolster your theory.

Move on…it’s a Hutchinson thread.

I cited the exact wording of the conclusions of all Ripper Inquests. Verbatim. The question to be determined was How the victim died categorically. The evidence presented to the jury allows them to consider how to categorize that death, and Schwartz's would have been relevant. I guess its simply that you can lead a horse to water but you cant stop it from sh***ing all over itself.

In case you cant see a relationship that exists between both of these individuals, both were "believed" by Abberline and neither had their evidence presented to a jury.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"The manner of death refers to how the person died. Universally, there are only five categories or manners of death classifications: natural, accident, homicide, suicide, or undetermined. The cause of death refers to why the person died, and it is the event that actually caused the individual’s death, such as a gunshot wound of head. There are many causes of death. Several are discussed with suggested unique investigation techniques depending on the circumstances of death and key points to remember about each type: asphyxia, blunt trauma, drowning, hanging, strangulation, smothering, gunshot wounds, and others."

Pollys Inquest: "The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."
Annies Inquest: "A verdict of wilful murder against a person or persons unknown was then entered."
Liz's Inquest: "The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."
Kates Inquest: "He [Coroner] presumed that the jury would return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown, and then the police could freely pursue their inquiries and follow up any clue they might obtain."
Marys Inquest: "The Foreman: Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. "

The jury was to decide which death "category" the evidence presented to them met. It is not the medical examiners job to determine the "category", it is the Jury's in these cases.

The statement of Israel Schwartz,... given with ample time to have him appear at the Inquest to present his statement, or to transcribe the statement for submission, ...concerns the victim and an assailant having a violent exchange minutes before her throat is cut, at that same location. The presentation of that evidence would surely lend credence to a consideration of a continued assault culminating in lethal violence. Israel would establish that she was seen in the presence of some one attacking her just before being cut. It would effectively rule out a Natural, Accidental, or Suicidal category. It is therefore very germane to the question that the jury was assembled to answer.

The fact that it is completely absent from any records concerning that Inquest, and having no mention of a witness statement being withheld for further investigation, leads me to conclude that they decided his statement was not sufficiently authenticated to enter as evidence.

In my words, they didnt believe it as presented.

You’re just typing words that have no basis in fact.

This isn’t about your ‘opinion.’ It’s the Coroners Act. I give up. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and your ‘conclusion’ is meaningless and based solely on your desire to denigrate Schwartz to bolster your theory.

Move on…it’s a Hutchinson thread.

[Michael W Richards]

"The manner of death refers to how the person died. Universally, there are only five categories or manners of death classifications: natural, accident, homicide, suicide, or undetermined. The cause of death refers to why the person died, and it is the event that actually caused the individual’s death, such as a gunshot wound of head. There are many causes of death. Several are discussed with suggested unique investigation techniques depending on the circumstances of death and key points to remember about each type: asphyxia, blunt trauma, drowning, hanging, strangulation, smothering, gunshot wounds, and others."

Pollys Inquest: "The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."
Annies Inquest: "A verdict of wilful murder against a person or persons unknown was then entered."
Liz's Inquest: "The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."
Kates Inquest: "He [Coroner] presumed that the jury would return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown, and then the police could freely pursue their inquiries and follow up any clue they might obtain."
Marys Inquest: "The Foreman: Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. "

The jury was to decide which death "category" the evidence presented to them met. It is not the medical examiners job to determine the "category", it is the Jury's in these cases.

The statement of Israel Schwartz,... given with ample time to have him appear at the Inquest to present his statement, or to transcribe the statement for submission, ...concerns the victim and an assailant having a violent exchange minutes before her throat is cut, at that same location. The presentation of that evidence would surely lend credence to a consideration of a continued assault culminating in lethal violence. Israel would establish that she was seen in the presence of some one attacking her just before being cut. It would effectively rule out a Natural, Accidental, or Suicidal category. It is therefore very germane to the question that the jury was assembled to answer.

The fact that it is completely absent from any records concerning that Inquest, and having no mention of a witness statement being withheld for further investigation, leads me to conclude that they decided his statement was not sufficiently authenticated to enter as evidence.

In my words, they didnt believe it as presented.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose I should have been more specific in that I understand that the Nature of the Death isnt the same as the precise Cause of Death. HOW in the Inquest vernacular of the period, refers the Categorization of the death,... be it Accidental, Suicide, Wilful Murder, Manslaughter..etc. The manner in which the death is caused deals with the specific catalyst for the loss of life,... gunshot, strangulation, being run over with a cart and horse, fell on pavement, slit throat, poisoning...etc.

They are both components of the Inquest goals, however the mandate is really on the HOW in these cases. To determine if any criminal activity was connectd with it.

The whole point I am making is that the story Israel Schwartz gave on Sunday night would be relevant to determining the HOW the injuries occur. If she is seen being assaulted just before she is being cut, that does suggest a Wilful act.

But the Coroner’s Act doesn’t make these distinctions Michael. It’s very clear and very simple. The HOW is decided by the Doctor and no one else. The WHO is decided by someone that actually knew the victim and what her name was. The WHEN is decided between the Doctor and the person that discovered the body and anyone that visited that spot without seeing a body there. And the WHERE would be decided between the finder of the body and the Police and Doctor who would evaluate if the body had been moved after death. And whether it was manslaughter or murder is certainly not a decision for a layman.

Schwartz could contribute zero of value. So it’s a black and white, 100% categorically proven, inarguable fact that Schwartz was not an important witness as far as the inquest went.

Anyone can state that they don’t believe Schwartz to have been a good witness or even a genuine one. It’s an opinion. But it cannot honestly be stated that anyone knows why he wasn’t at the inquest. There are any number of possible reasons but ‘he wasn’t believed by the police’ clearly isn’t one of them.

[Michael W Richards]

There are several little connective factoids with Issac[s], he is named Joe....Mary was in a double "Joe" jeopardy at the time of her murder, we dont know who that other Joe was.......he did just move in the week of the murder, and then move out suddenly leaving personal items the night of it...the Astrakan collared coat, enhancing Hutchinsons description, known to be threatening to women late in their teens and older, a Polish Jew no less, and as I wonder about often, was the man that Louis Diemshizt called Issac[s] someone actually with that surname? Because Issac says he went out alone.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

I've not heard of this before (or I don't recognize it at least). Can you tell me where this information about the local Astrakan wearing Joe can be found?

Thanks.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

A man named Joseph Issacs. From the Manchester Evening News Dec 10;

"The police are continuing their inquiries into the antecedents of Joseph Isaacs, said to be a Polish Jew, who is now in custody on a charge of watch stealing. Mary Cusins, the deputy of a lodging-house in Paternoster Row, near Dorset-street, and Cornelius Oakes, a lodger, state that the conduct of the prisoner was frequently strange. Although he had a violin and four or five other musical instruments, he was never known to play any of them. Oakes says the prisoner used often to change his dress. He heard him threaten violence to all women above 17 years of age."

London Evening News, Dec 8;

"The prisoner, who was brought up in the custody of Detective-sergeant Record, H Division, is the man who was arrested in Drury-lane on Thursday afternoon on suspicion of being connected with the Whitechapel murders. It transpired during the hearing of this charge that it was committed at the very time the prisoner was being watched as a person "wanted." The prosecutor, Levenson, said that the prisoner entered his shop on the 5th instant, with a violin bow, and asked him to repair it. Whilst discussing the matter, the prisoner bolted out of the shop, and witness missed a gold watch belonging to a customer. The watch had been found at a pawn-shop. To prove that the prisoner was the man who entered the shop, a woman named Mary Cusins was called. She is deputy of a lodging-house in Paternoster-row, Spitalfields, and said that the prisoner had lodged in the house, as a single lodger, for three or four nights before the Dorset-street murder - the murder of Mary Janet Kelly, in Miller's-court. He disappeared after that murder, leaving the violin bow behind. The witness on the house to house inspection gave information to the police, and said she remembered that on the night of the murder she heard the prisoner walk about his room. After her statement a look out was kept for the prisoner, whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat. He visited the lodging-house on the 5th, and asked for the violin bow. It was given to him and the witness Cusins followed him to give him into custody as requested. She saw him enter Levenson's shop, and almost immediately run out, no constable being at hand. Detective Record said that there were some matters alleged against the prisoner, which it was desired to inquire into."

Since Hutchinson gave a description that seems to fit a man staying in the immediate area of Marys lodgings, one who suddenly disappears the night she is killed, I believe the possibility that Hutchinsons statement was intended to direct the police attentions to that man as a suspect. Because I dont believe that his actual motivation was a desire to help the police quickly find his "friends" butcher, I think his information, even if true, was likely useless after such a delay being brought forward.

And as I noted, there were changes made to the investigators attentions, no longer was Wideawake a possible accomplice, just good ol' Hutchy looking out for Mary, and it would appear they lost interest in even talking to Blotchy Face, judging by the Galloway sighting a few days later.

There was a suggestion that a Pardon had been considered earlier in these crimes, Considering and actually Issuing are not the same thing. Wideawake Man is surely the impetus for the offer being made into law, but as an Accomplice. Not the killer. The killer is likely the last person she is seen with if she went indoors and wasnt seen coming back out...and that was Blotchy.

[Michael W Richards]

Again, this has been explained to you Michael and shouldn’t be difficult to grasp. The HOW Liz died is another way of saying the Cause Of Death. The Doctor decides on the cause of death not a man who saw her having a scuffle with a man minutes earlier. I really can’t see the Doctor asking Schwartz opinion on the subject….can you?

I suppose I should have been more specific in that I understand that the Nature of the Death isnt the same as the precise Cause of Death. HOW in the Inquest vernacular of the period, refers the Categorization of the death,... be it Accidental, Suicide, Wilful Murder, Manslaughter..etc. The manner in which the death is caused deals with the specific catalyst for the loss of life,... gunshot, strangulation, being run over with a cart and horse, fell on pavement, slit throat, poisoning...etc.

They are both components of the Inquest goals, however the mandate is really on the HOW in these cases. To determine if any criminal activity was connectd with it.

The whole point I am making is that the story Israel Schwartz gave on Sunday night would be relevant to determining the HOW the injuries occur. If she is seen being assaulted just before she is being cut, that does suggest a Wilful act.

[c.d.]

Hi c.d.,

While I fully agree that understanding the coroner's act doesn't answer the question of why Schwartz doesn't testify, I think fully appreciating the implications of its requirements is necessary to realise just how wide and diverse the possible "why's" can be! Understanding it opens up a large number of possibilities that otherwise might get overlooked by being presumed to be out of the running. To understand what we know requires us to understand what we do not.

- Jeff

Agreed, Jeff. I was certainly not trying to diminish the importance of the Act only warn against using its provisions to arrive at a conclusion not warranted by the Act.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I am currently working on an answer for that question, and I am relieved that someone has finally asked that specific question because it will give some validation to what I am planning to submit in due course.

Watch this space as they say

I shall keep this space under constant 24 hour surveillance. Maybe even 25 hours.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

Are there any parallels to be drawn between Hutchinson and Schwartz?

Wouldn't it be a revelation if Schwartz was the Ripper....and Hutchinson....was also the Ripper.

The Ripper being a talented actor who had the ability to fool everyone.

There's an element of theatrics with both Schwartz and Hutchinson....and I wonder if that's more significant than we realise?





RD

What?

[The Rookie Detective]

Are there any parallels to be drawn between Hutchinson and Schwartz?

Wouldn't it be a revelation if Schwartz was the Ripper....and Hutchinson....was also the Ripper.

The Ripper being a talented actor who had the ability to fool everyone.

There's an element of theatrics with both Schwartz and Hutchinson....and I wonder if that's more significant than we realise?





RD

[JeffHamm]

Arguing over the provisions and requirements of The Coroner's Act will do absolutely nothing to resolve the question of why Schwartz was not called. Whether or not he was required by the Act to be there makes no difference. All we know is that he was not. We do not know why.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

While I fully agree that understanding the coroner's act doesn't answer the question of why Schwartz doesn't testify, I think fully appreciating the implications of its requirements is necessary to realise just how wide and diverse the possible "why's" can be! Understanding it opens up a large number of possibilities that otherwise might get overlooked by being presumed to be out of the running. To understand what we know requires us to understand what we do not.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

He never existed as Schwartz in the first place.

If you believe that is the case why did "Schwartz" interject himself into the investigation in the first place?

c.d.

That is the most excellent question...and I believe the answer potentially holds the key to the entire case.

I am currently working on an answer for that question, and I am relieved that someone has finally asked that specific question because it will give some validation to what I am planning to submit in due course.


Watch this space as they say



RD

[c.d.]

He never existed as Schwartz in the first place.

If you believe that is the case why did "Schwartz" interject himself into the investigation in the first place?

c.d.