Why Wasn't Hutchinson used to try to ID Kosminski?

[Sunny Delight]

Quite some time ago on Casebook there was a discussion on Casebook that 'definitely ascertained fact' pertained to the suspect being a Polish Jew, not to the suspect being the murderer. Anderson's sentence was, 'In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact'. Interestingly, this line was added to the book edition. When the earlier serialisation was published, Anderson was criticised for saying the murderer was a Jew, so it is possible that Anderson added the line to stress that in so describing the murderer he was stating an established fact. I thought the argument was quite persuasive. I wrote an alaysis of Anderson in Ripperologist some years ago. Goodness knows which issue. Whether or not I'd still agree with all of what I wrote though is open to question. I haven't read it since it was published.

Thanks I will check it out. Interesting info regarding Anderson- I think he genuinely convinced himself of Kosminski's guilt. We will never know what Swanson thought although he doesn't correct or question Andersons account. The fact Kosminski is named by MacNaghten as well I feel is significant. He must have been very high up the list of suspects amongst the senior detectives. It would be so helpful to know how he came to Police attention and who initially received that information and what lines did it go through to reach the top?

[harry]

Let's start at the beginning.The witness approached the police,or came to the attention of the police,because of information the witness had relating to one or more of the Whitechapel murders.The information,from what supposedly ensued,(An identification) can,I think,be presumed to be one of recognition of a suspect,seen or known by the witness ,to have been at the scene of a murder,and who's presence or actions (Suspect) raised suspicions. The police would closely question this witness,to establish that the witness was reliable,and the evidence sound.What was the evidence?In the case under discussion,it was that the witness would recognise the suspect. It couldn't have been anything else,if the police deemed an identification was neccessary.If the witness had known Kosminski personnly,was an aquaintance,friend,relation etc,there would have been no need of an identification parade or meeting.Rule that out and we are left with the only explanation given.He simply recognised,or knew him, as a Jew.Instantly.we are told.That raises a very big question in my mind(small as that may be).If he could instantly recognise him as a Jew later,he must have known,from the very beginning that he(the suspect) was a Jew.Would have told the police.
My conclusion is,there was never any need for a seaside home meeting,and it probably never took place.

[erobitha]

Stewart P Evans dissertation here https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html is an excellent attempt to qualify and put context around the chain of events of that time. If this was to be taken as the real timeline and chain of events then it still leaves some interesting questions and observations:

1) If Lawende did positively ID the suspect at the seaside home in July 1890 then why did the police not use that? The excuse of "a Jew won't tell on another Jew" is highly odd. If Lawende was willing to ID the person he saw, then on some base level he wanted to help catch the killer, but only if he turns out not be Jewish? If he had the best look at the Ripper as many believe he did, then would he not already have known this fact? So why even go to the seaside home? Was he really positively identified? We only have the police side on this. Or did the police want to appear that if wasnt for a jew not testifying against another jew they would have the damn ripper?
2) The press at the time were very critical of the police. Much like social media today is of everything. The police were under immense pressure to show they were on top of things. It would suit the narrative of "we knew all along" but other factors prevented us from making an arrest - thus showing they were not inept (certainly in the eyes of the press and the unconvinced public)
3) Koz was clearly on a list of people who may have had opportuniuty when the police were doing their house calls in October 1888, so when out of nowhere they find out a man on their list has had an attack of insanity in July 1890 this was very interesting. So he was on a list from 1888, but not flagged until at least July 1890 - almost 2 years later. Now they have another potential patsy like Druitt, except this one was a little more plausible in the sense he was much fitting of the caricature of what they believed JTR to be. Covenient coat peg springs to mind

If there was more than circumstantial eveidence than just being a bit bat **** crazy and living the area at the time, they would have had more. They didn't. These women would not be left alone with a strange, unclean man like Koz - they were street smart women. Whoever did this had a ruse that put the women at ease. He simply was not capable of this. Outside of the DNA allegedly connecting Koz to Eddowes shawl (which is dubious at best) there is literally little else linking Koz.

[Sunny Delight]

Stewart P Evans dissertation here https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html is an excellent attempt to qualify and put context around the chain of events of that time. If this was to be taken as the real timeline and chain of events then it still leaves some interesting questions and observations:

1) If Lawende did positively ID the suspect at the seaside home in July 1890 then why did the police not use that? The excuse of "a Jew won't tell on another Jew" is highly odd. If Lawende was willing to ID the person he saw, then on some base level he wanted to help catch the killer, but only if he turns out not be Jewish? If he had the best look at the Ripper as many believe he did, then would he not already have known this fact? So why even go to the seaside home? Was he really positively identified? We only have the police side on this. Or did the police want to appear that if wasnt for a jew not testifying against another jew they would have the damn ripper?
2) The press at the time were very critical of the police. Much like social media today is of everything. The police were under immense pressure to show they were on top of things. It would suit the narrative of "we knew all along" but other factors prevented us from making an arrest - thus showing they were not inept (certainly in the eyes of the press and the unconvinced public)
3) Koz was clearly on a list of people who may have had opportuniuty when the police were doing their house calls in October 1888, so when out of nowhere they find out a man on their list has had an attack of insanity in July 1890 this was very interesting. So he was on a list from 1888, but not flagged until at least July 1890 - almost 2 years later. Now they have another potential patsy like Druitt, except this one was a little more plausible in the sense he was much fitting of the caricature of what they believed JTR to be. Covenient coat peg springs to mind

If there was more than circumstantial eveidence than just being a bit bat **** crazy and living the area at the time, they would have had more. They didn't. These women would not be left alone with a strange, unclean man like Koz - they were street smart women. Whoever did this had a ruse that put the women at ease. He simply was not capable of this. Outside of the DNA allegedly connecting Koz to Eddowes shawl (which is dubious at best) there is literally little else linking Koz.

Some excellent points. However my only problem would be we don't know Kosminski's mental state in 1888. He was able to attend court in 1889 and converse in English so he was certainly not the raving loon he became. He may very well have been able to put the women at ease. Kosminski is a very intriguing P.O.I but then if one was to look at Colin Stagg he had all the quirks of someone suspicious and was in the park at the time of Rachel Nickel's murder. The senior Police were convinced it was him and would hear nothing else. But Robert Napper had slipped through the net. It happens and without something much more clear cut the 'definitely ascertained fact' needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Wickerman]

...

3) Koz was clearly on a list of people who may have had opportuniuty when the police were doing their house calls in October 1888, so when out of nowhere they find out a man on their list has had an attack of insanity in July 1890 this was very interesting. So he was on a list from 1888, but not flagged until at least July 1890 - almost 2 years later.......

In October, after the house-to-house, Anderson wrote his famous lines on the police "never in the annals of crime", and "not having a single clue....".
In fact, there is nothing in writing that can be considered evidence which indicates Kozminski was a suspect until long after 1888.
Perhaps, this is the answer to the question posed in the O.P., Hutchinson was not called upon to identify Kozminski because Hutchinson had long disappeared by the time Kozminski became a police suspect.


I never knew Russel Crowe was a hardcore Leeds United supporter but then, he never knew I was either!
Way-up! Leeds, back where you belong!

[Sunny Delight]

In October, after the house-to-house, Anderson wrote his famous lines on the police "never in the annals of crime", and "not having a single clue....".
In fact, there is nothing in writing that can be considered evidence which indicates Kozminski was a suspect until long after 1888.
Perhaps, this is the answer to the question posed in the O.P., Hutchinson was not called upon to identify Kozminski because Hutchinson had long disappeared by the time Kozminski became a police suspect.


I never knew Russel Crowe was a hardcore Leeds United supporter but then, he never knew I was either!
Way-up! Leeds, back where you belong!

I can't see why they would have used Hutchinson when it was far from certain he had seen Kelly with the Ripper. I have been a long time lurker here and have often felt your view that maybe Kelly was seen at 3:30am to be compelling. For me it was obvious for the Police to use Lawende- his sighting of Eddowes was so close to the murder time that there was no time for Eddowes to be accosted by someone else. It also seems to tie in with MacNaghten's London PC which quite obviously was meant to be London PC Witness. That would be a big problem if everything else MacNaghten had written was 100% accurate but it was far from it. So to make a mistake about the PC Witness would not be a suprise.

[Scott Nelson]

Hutchinson was not called upon to identify Kozminski because Hutchinson had long disappeared by the time Kozminski became a police suspect.

And by the time Hutchinson became a potential police witness, Kosminski was at liberty, but unknown.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I never knew Russel Crowe was a hardcore Leeds United supporter but then, he never knew I was either!
Way-up! Leeds, back where you belong!

Leeds going up, make sure you give The Villa a wave on our way down...

[TheTypeWriter]

In my opinion Hutchinson was a liar. Not everyone will agree and that's okay, but I don't think he was entirely truthful (if at all)

[The Baron]

You may all have forgotten that there were two witnesses that said they saw Kelly alive at the morning that day, which makes Hutschinson's sighting against anyone useless in the court.

That is the answer to the first question.

But I don't totally dismiss the idea that Hutschinson may have led the police to Kosminski at the first place, he described a man with a jewish appearance, said he saw him another time, walk with the police searching for him.

Cox said, they got upon a trial only after Kellys body was discovered, maybe because of Hutschinson testimony.


The Baron

[erobitha]

The problem is the reliability of both witnesses. Mrs Maxwell barely knew Kelly by her own admission and the clothes she described her in I understand were not similar to the ones the body was found in. She may have been a bit of a fantasist. Hasn’t someone released a book claiming her husband Henry was the ripper based on her own testimony?

As for Hutchison there is something amiss with him. I have yet to put my finger on what. Most of us would seem to agree on the whole that Abberline was a decent copper. He deemed his testimony to be true and he believed him. When a description like that is given with way too much detail, in modern context we would feel he might be trying to mislead the investigation and direct it down a particular path. He may not be the killer or even an accomplice but what if he had designs on Kelly himself and got wind JB was no longer on the scene. He could have been stalking her for all we know. By the way it takes almost 6 hours to walk from Romford to Whitechapel, with no breaks. He claims he arrived back in the area around 2.30am. Which means he most likely left Romford around 8pm the previous evening. Strikes me as an odd, but also dangerous time to start a six hour walk.

[c.d.]

Most of us would seem to agree on the whole that Abberline was a decent copper. He deemed his testimony to be true and he believed him.

Hello Erobitha,

It would seem that Abberline believed him initially but we don't know if that changed at a later point. Also, belief is a spectrum so it may have been that Abberline believed it was more likely than not that Hutchinson was telling the truth as opposed to being so sure that he would wager the souls of his wife and grandchildren on it.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

The problem is the reliability of both witnesses. Mrs Maxwell barely knew Kelly by her own admission and the clothes she described her in I understand were not similar to the ones the body was found in. She may have been a bit of a fantasist. Hasn’t someone released a book claiming her husband Henry was the ripper based on her own testimony?

As for Hutchison there is something amiss with him. I have yet to put my finger on what. Most of us would seem to agree on the whole that Abberline was a decent copper. He deemed his testimony to be true and he believed him. When a description like that is given with way too much detail, in modern context we would feel he might be trying to mislead the investigation and direct it down a particular path. He may not be the killer or even an accomplice but what if he had designs on Kelly himself and got wind JB was no longer on the scene. He could have been stalking her for all we know. By the way it takes almost 6 hours to walk from Romford to Whitechapel, with no breaks. He claims he arrived back in the area around 2.30am. Which means he most likely left Romford around 8pm the previous evening. Strikes me as an odd, but also dangerous time to start a six hour walk.

Mrs Maxwell according to Walter Dew was a respectable woman who it seems genuinely believed she had seen Kelly. She of course must have been mistaken. Maybe she mistook Kelly for someone else- the bottom line though is with the scientific evidence she must have gotten it wrong.

As for Hutchinson I think he was also truthful. Dew of course writing many years later does not deem him to have been suspicious or someone attempting to divert the investigation. Walking such a distance in 1888 was common. We often have a tendency to look at these things through a 21st century lens. We don't know why Hutchinson was in Romford nor what led to him setting off for home but whatever it was Abberline did not see it as suspicious or unusual. In regards his relationship with Kelly he claimed to have known her for three years and to have sometimes given her money. We could infer it meant he was a client but by the same token maybe he had gotten to know her through a friend and was just a kind sort of soul who took pity on her. We just don't know.

For me Hutchinson seems credible. In my own opinion he meets Kelly who propositions him but he is out of money and has to pass. Theirs is a brief exchange. An affluent man approaches Kelly who he has seen solicite Hutchinson. Contrary to popular belief affluent people lived in the area- one look at Booth's 1889 map will show that. Middle class individuals who would have had a decent income and were to be found along the main thoroughfares of Whitechapel. This man is brought back to Kelly's abode for the sixpence she had asked Hutchinson. That seems right- an extra 2 pence for an inside transaction. Sarah Lewis sees Hutchinson at 2:30 standing opposite Miller's Court. Her testimony is the clincher. This man must have been Hutchinson. Those who suspect Hutchinson or question his motives go through some incredible mental gymnastics to try and explain this. And so for that reason I believe Hutchinson and believe it likely he saw the Ripper. But don't forget- it is also a possibility that Kelly was seen at 3:30 by Mrs Kennedy. That would change things dramatically.

[Joshua Rogan]

The problem is the reliability of both witnesses. Mrs Maxwell barely knew Kelly by her own admission and the clothes she described her in I understand were not similar to the ones the body was found in.

Aside from the fact that Kelly's body was found wearing only a torn chemise, Maxwell's description of the clothing she was last seen wearing match very well with the descriptions given by Mrs Cox, or at least, there's nothing inconsistent between the two;

Daily Telegraph inquest report

Maxwell: "What sort of dress had the deceased ? - A dark skirt, a velvet body, a maroon shawl, and no hat."

Cox: "What clothes had Mary Jane on ? - She had no hat; a red pelerine and a shabby skirt."

Of course, if this was her habitual dress style then it means little.

[Abby Normal]

The problem is the reliability of both witnesses. Mrs Maxwell barely knew Kelly by her own admission and the clothes she described her in I understand were not similar to the ones the body was found in. She may have been a bit of a fantasist. Hasn’t someone released a book claiming her husband Henry was the ripper based on her own testimony?

As for Hutchison there is something amiss with him. I have yet to put my finger on what. Most of us would seem to agree on the whole that Abberline was a decent copper. He deemed his testimony to be true and he believed him. When a description like that is given with way too much detail, in modern context we would feel he might be trying to mislead the investigation and direct it down a particular path. He may not be the killer or even an accomplice but what if he had designs on Kelly himself and got wind JB was no longer on the scene. He could have been stalking her for all we know. By the way it takes almost 6 hours to walk from Romford to Whitechapel, with no breaks. He claims he arrived back in the area around 2.30am. Which means he most likely left Romford around 8pm the previous evening. Strikes me as an odd, but also dangerous time to start a six hour walk.

both maxwells and hutchs stories dont make alot of sense.

maxwell barely knew kelly, and probably saw another woman who she thought was kelly. the coroner even questioned her story.
plus maxwell says kelly already tells her she went to the pub for a bit of the hair of the dog, and it didnt help her hangover as more drinking caused her to vomit. amd then says she sees her at the pub a half hour later chatting up a man. cmon. sounds like this woman who she thought was kellu was nearly suffering from alcohol poisoning and yet shes going back to the pub this sick and chatting up clients? i dont buy it.

as for hutchs trek from romford leaving at eight. makes no sense. he has no place to stay in wc anyway why leave at night to make a six hour trek with nowhere to stay. BS


And yes he was engaged with stalking behaviour with kelly.