Romford

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Fleetwood Mac;188453][QUOTE=Rubyretro;188445]

In all fairness, Hutchinson's description isn't furnished with a great deal more in the way of details than Lawende's, and Lawende doubted he'd be able to recognise him again.

Very interesting , Fleetwood..

There is all the difference, maybe...

Lawende "doubted he'd be able to to recognise him again". (in his witness statement)

Hutchinson did, I think, have more details in his description than Lawende, and Hutchinson thought that he would be able to recognise his suspect again , whilst Lawende didn't.

But surely it is incontestable that the Police put more faith finally in Lawende as a witness than Hutchinson ?

It is surely incontestable that Casebookers (globally) don't fight or dispute over Lawende and his Witness Statement, as they do over Hutchinson and his ?

Why is that ?

I think that is such a fab question for debate that you should start a thread on it, Fleetwood ! (please, please do !).

Yet, it is

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;188445][QUOTE][QUOTE]

Don't exaggerate ! A minute or so in the dark, with A Man trying to keep his head down (the time needed for a well-off man to make a deal with a desperate poor prostitute -unless you think that He and Mary were comparing thoughts on 'A Study in Scarlet' or something).

Nonsense. Toppy saw his man coming, and he watched him pass, and he watched him walk away. Plenty of time to see details, and as I've proven before, people did often have their overcoats opened, and wore tighter suitcoats so a vest could be seen underneath. There are more people in the world with an eye for detail than there are are serial killers, don't you think?

Mike

[Rubyretro]

I think that there are more Serial killers in the world than men with X-Ray Eyes.

Mike -please reply to my post asking you for information concerning any brothers attending MJKs funeral (on another thread concerning Mary Kelly).
It may only be my memory playing tricks, but I think that you once referred to this ?

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;188460][QUOTE][QUOTE=Fleetwood Mac;188453]

Very interesting , Fleetwood..

There is all the difference, maybe...

Lawende "doubted he'd be able to to recognise him again". (in his witness statement)

Hutchinson did, I think, have more details in his description than Lawende, and Hutchinson thought that he would be able to recognise his suspect again , whilst Lawende didn't.

But surely it is incontestable that the Police put more faith finally in Lawende as a witness than Hutchinson ?

It is surely incontestable that Casebookers (globally) don't fight or dispute over Lawende and his Witness Statement, as they do over Hutchinson and his ?

Why is that ?

I think that is such a fab question for debate that you should start a thread on it, Fleetwood ! (please, please do !).

Yet, it is

Ah but the issue was one of could someone remember such details.

There are inconsistencies in Lawende's statement, and perhaps the City PC witness was not Lawende.

I think what makes Lawende more believable is that he walked past on his way home as expected; whereas Hutchinson stood around for at least 3/4 of an hour, and this man living locally was not identifed by anyone else in the vicinity. Come on.....he wasn't there.

[Rubyretro]

.

Come on.....he wasn't there.

[/QUOTE]

Fleetwood -I think that is a much better argument than 'the wrong night'.

However , Sarah Lewis saw someone doing the exact same thing as
Hutchinson claimed to be doing at the same time.

Why did Hutch come forward, after the inquest, to -and you would have it 'by
coincidence'- put himself into the shoes of Sarah Lewis's loiterer ?

Surely, that can't be just coincidence? If Hutch 'wasn't there', then at least he must have followed the inquest, been aware of Lewis's Statement, and then waited, made up a very complicated story, with lots of effort, and then gone to the Police and put himself in the Hot seat. (why ?)

(Fishy sees this, so he's decided to just 'scrub' Sarah Lewis).

Such a convincing hoax that Abberline himself interviewed Hutch.

So you must admit, Fleetwood, that Hutchinson was a very special and very convincing liar ? Then there is the fact that Hutchinson was to all evidence 'dropped' as a witness -but quietly.

People here refute the word 'discredited', plead 'checking out' and quote Dew as still thinking that Hutchinson was 'honest but mistaken' -which surely
can't be possible if he lied after the event about being where he wasn't (because then there would be witnesses as to to where he actually was).
It's a conundrum.

But (I'm convinced), Serial Killers plan -they plan fake alibis and they like playing 'cat and mouse' and they protect their backs.

Whenever I have doubts, the fact comes back to me -the Canonical murders stop as soon as Hutchinson became known to the Police, Press and Public.

There has to be a reason why the murders stopped after the escalation to Kelly's death.

One logical reason is that the killer got too close to being unmasked (or unmasking himself), and he was forced to 'rest'.

[Wickerman]

The tailors dummy could be viewed, at leisure, in daylight, with all the time needed to memorize details.

But why?
You think Hutchinson walked past a Tailors window every day and fell in love with one display, "I think I'll make up a story about this dummy"?

I'd love to see someone explain the mechanics of how this "tailors dummy" comes into play in Hutchinson's mind?
Wouldn't it have been easier to give the police a description which equated to the last published description (Lawende's) issued by the police?

Was there even a Tailors display 'shop' in the area? Fishman informs us (East End, 1888), that among the Jews Tailoring establishments were the most prolific of trades in the East End. Though the vast majority were backroom sweatshops, and many working for West End clients. How many streetfront Tailors shops were they in the East end? With space being at a premuim and overcrowding so endemic, who could aford the space for a window display?

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

.

However , Sarah Lewis saw someone doing the exact same thing as
Hutchinson claimed to be doing at the same time.

Which is not the same as Hutchinson being identified.

.

Why did Hutch come forward, after the inquest, to -and you would have it 'by
coincidence'- put himself into the shoes of Sarah Lewis's loiterer ?

The problem you have with Lewis is this: "between 2 and 3 am". Now that is not specific by anyone's stretch of the imagination. If you add 10 minutes either way, then there's a 35 minute window of opportunity for someone standing there outside of the time Hutchinson claimed to be standing there.

.

gone to the Police and put himself in the Hot seat. (why ?)

And of course he did go to the police, but didn't put himself in the hot seat. Perhaps he was confident this would be the case with him not being the murderer.

Why? Chancer.

.

Such a convincing hoax that Abberline himself interviewed Hutch.

Out of curiosity, if he was so convincing then why do you feel his statement is so unconvincing?

[Rubyretro]

Gor Blimey, you should ask Bob.

You think Hutchinson walked past a Tailors window every day and fell in love with one display, "I think I'll make up a story about this dummy"?

No, I think that when he wanted a description, then he he knew where to go to make sure that the details stood up (ifa tailors dummy is the answer to how he invented his description).

I'd love to see someone explain the mechanics of how this "tailors dummy" comes into play in Hutchinson's mind?

mechanics ? I can imagine Hutchinson needing a story for 'damage limitation' (because he feared he'd been seen), making up a story in his head, and then looking for the details to make it believable.

Wouldn't it have been easier to give the police a description which equated to the last published description (Lawende's) issued by the police

?

I think that Hutchinson absolutely wanted to blame a Jew for the murder. He literally said that the man looked jewish, but he also gave heavy hints in the description. He still tried to link the description to Lawende's by writing in the red handkerchief, which ties in with Sailor Man's red kerchief.

Was there even a Tailors display 'shop' in the area? Fishman informs us (East End, 1888), that among the Jews Tailoring establishments were the most prolific of trades in the East End. Though the vast majority were backroom sweatshops, and many working for West End clients. How many streetfront Tailors shops were they in the East end? With space being at a premuim and overcrowding so endemic, who could aford the space for a window display?

I've no idea Jon, but if he could walk to Romford, then he could get to a window display in London, I'm sure.

[Wickerman]

...I think that Hutchinson absolutely wanted to blame a Jew for the murder. He literally said that the man looked jewish, but he also gave heavy hints in the description.

Precisly so, and I don't mind sharing the thought which came to my mind about why Hutchinson's description appeared to fade.

First of all, we don't really know if it did fade, but there's no evidence that the desription he offered was prominent for very long.

Here's what William Fishman wrote:
"The Pall Mall Gazette, a popular sensational paper, was, as early as February 1886, already referring to 'A Judenhetz brewing in East London' and warning its readers that 'the foreign Jews of no nationality whatever are becoming a pest and a menace to the poor native born East Ender'

Fishman also writes:
"1888 was the year that the 'problem' of foreign immigration finally broke surface, and the old scapegoat, the Jew, was available in all his vulnerability."

The possibility exists, that after accompanying Hutchinson around the streets at night the police deduced, perhaps by his demeanor & conversation, that Hutchinson was highly anti-semitic. While we tend to think he could not live up to his claim of identifying his 'suspect', the reverse may have been true, Hutchinson just might have fingered too many "well-dressed" men who all were able to identify themselves.

Given that the description he provided was suggested to indicate a Jew, and given his anti-semitic attitude, the police might have had cause for reconsideration. Not that there was anything specific they could put their finger on, but they may have prudently decided to withdraw, in favour of Cox's statement.

Not that any of Hutchinson's story was untrue. Not that his truethfulness could be challenged, but that the authorities could not be certain just how much his anti-semitic opinions might have contributed to his description.
It's a possible solution, but only a highly speculative one.

Just to reiterate, I don't know if Hutchinson was anti-semitic, and I'm not suggesting he was, only, given the climate of the times, that he might have been.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

We're suddenly getting on the same wavelength, Jon !

Could Hutch's description of A Man have anything to do with the fact that
on the night of the previous murders (the 'Double Event'), one prostitute was murdered outside a jewish club, then a second prostitute was murdered close to where men were coming out from a second jewish club, and then a piece
of Eddowe's apron was found inside the doorway of a building inhabited by lots of jewish people (just to hammer the message home) ?

[Rubyretro]

Forgive me for answering this again, but I found your answer so interesting, Jon, that I've been thinking about it all day at work..

The possibility exists, that after accompanying Hutchinson around the streets at night the police deduced, perhaps by his demeanor & conversation, that Hutchinson was highly anti-semitic. While we tend to think he could not live up to his claim of identifying his 'suspect', the reverse may have been true, Hutchinson just might have fingered too many "well-dressed" men who all were able to identify themselves.

Not bad at all. Again, much better than 'the wrong night' as a theory. I think that there are quite a few clues to indicate that Hutchinson was 'highly anti-semitic :
-He describes A Man's face as 'surly' and "he looked at me stern" it's really not sympathetic.
-His description is of someone 'ostentatious' (the coat trimmed with fur, two bits of gold jewellery, the watch with a flashy bit of onamentation added on ).
Gold is of course traditionally associated with Jews.

Hutchinson describes the man picking up a prostitute and laughing with her
-no crime there, and nothing threatening- we get arms round shoulders, kisses, the offer of a handkerchief... Infact Hutchinson says that he never suspected the man of being dangerous or the murderer...

What was Hutchinson's own behaviour (according to himself) in all this ?
He bent down to peer directly at the man's face, he stood staring, he followed the couple back down a dark and infamous street, he stood close enough to overhear their conversation and he lurked outside the room where
they were presumably bonking. And he must have been a strong labouring type that lived in a lodging house -pretty menacing to the likes of A Man.

I mean who is the threatening scary one here ?

Well, I believe that Hutchinson invented A Man -and if he did, then he is really giving away his hate and jealousy with this story.

That a poor casual labourer -with rudimentary education, competing for jobs with immigrants who might be more skilled than himself, but willing to work for lower wages out of desperation- would be anti-semite, is sadly all too easy to believe. Just like BS man and Pipeman.

[QUOTE]Given that the description he provided was suggested to indicate a Jew, and given his anti-semitic attitude, the police might have had cause for reconsideration. Not that there was anything specific they could put their finger on, but they may have prudently decided to withdraw[/QUOTE
I've got no quarrel with that -given the alacrity with which the GSG was wiped off. The Police did decide to 'withdraw' as you put it.

[QUOTE] Not that his truethfulness could be challenged[/QUOTE
Obviously he didn't become a suspect, so I don't think that the Police could 'challenge' him, as you say. But they nevertheless 'withdrew'.

Just to reiterate, I don't know if Hutchinson was anti-semitic, and I'm not suggesting he was, only, given the climate of the times, that he might have been.

Fine.

[The Good Michael]

It doesn't matter if GWTH was anti-semitic or not. If he was a master planner, he would have used extant anti-semitism to bolster his story.

Do i believe he did? No. It's rare for very young serial killers to stop and have a family and become respectable citizens whose children have sung his praises.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

It doesn't matter if GWTH was anti-semitic or not. If he was a master planner, he would have used extant anti-semitism to bolster his story.

You're right. I think that his story points to the fact that he was anti-semite though.

Do i believe he did? No. It's rare for very young serial killers to stop and have a family and become respectable citizens whose children have sung his praises.[/

QUOTE]Mike

We don't need more Toppy fights on this thread. Try presenting the Toppy
argument as a Balance Sheet though, and see what you get. Given that the
differing expert opinions on the signatures cancel each other out, and the two similar 'George Hutchinson' names also cancel each other out, all you're left with on your side is 'Reg said so' (and there are very many possible reasons why Reg could have been wrong).

[The Good Michael]

I am not fighting about GWTH. I know he is teh same George Hutchinson that stands accused. I have almost no doubt. As far as signature comparisons, despite the nonsense that Ben has fed you, there was only one handwriting expert who made the comparisons and he suggested that they were similar enough to be investigated further. Sue Iremonger did not compare all signatures and only looked at those from the statement, so what she had to say is invalid for the argument. Of course this is something that Hutchers fail to comprehend or to admit. In point of fact, we laypeople can do just as good a job in most cases comparing such unforged and innocuous signatures. Those without agenda are pretty certain of GWTH being GH. Those with agenda look for small details to try and prove they are not the provenance of the same person, a disingenuous thing to do when there is no reason to believe there was deceit on anyone's part to distort the record. Tell you what, if you can prove that there was another George Hutchinson with similar signatures of the same age living in the east End and spending his whole life in that area, I will stop using GWTH or Toppy. Until then, I shal and it isn't an argument. It is just the bare facts, jack.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Not bad at all. Again, much better than 'the wrong night' as a theory. I think that there are quite a few clues to indicate that Hutchinson was 'highly anti-semitic :

Well, pardon me for not being too over enthused about it, certainly it is a possibility but no more than that in my opinion.
You have though, hi-lited a number of possibly contributing factors to the proposal, it is something to keep in mind.
I'm all in favour of rationale explanations as opposed to failing to understand and in consequence just branding him a liar.

Well, I believe that Hutchinson invented A Man -and if he did, then he is really giving away his hate and jealousy with this story.

Whereas, I don't think it was necessary for him to invent A-man, the man Sarah Lewis saw was already present. Unfortunately, Lewis did not provide the depth of detail that Hutch did so we do not know whether her 'man' wore an Astrachan-trimmed coat or not.

The detail provided by Hutch may be due to his description being a composit from the two sightings, Friday morning in the dark and Sunday morning in daylight.
Although we cannot be certain if these two men were the same, given the lack of information that night I think it is advisable to keep the possibility in mind, we cannot dismiss it, is what I'm saying.

(Re: Police induced to pursue alternate line of inquiry)

I've got no quarrel with that -given the alacrity with which the GSG was wiped off. The Police did decide to 'withdraw' as you put it.

Yes, I think we are presented with a situation where the Echo suggest the police had a change of heart, but with no suggestion of Hutchinson being an unreliable witness. We have to find a middle ground which is consistent with both situations.

Regards, Jon S.