Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I don't doubt he could have walked that distance over many hours, many of the era would have, but that for me was not the strange part. It's the time he set off at to be in WC around the time of his sighting of MJK. To start such a long walk that late in evening and through the night, when all sorts of dangers lurk along the way, to me is highly odd. The other odd thing was the almost perfect description he gave of the suspect, when thumbing through the witness reports, no-one has even come close to that level of absolute detail. Abberline took him to be true, and i expect that is good enough. However, as I say, I have yet to put my finger on why he said these things but I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as being the murderer. Why wasn't he used for the seaside home ID? Most likely he had left the area by them and was pretty untraceable or someone in the police no longer trusted Hutchison's version of events. My money was simply on he was least available and Lawende would probably would be a more "respectable" witness. Although they failed to get ultimately what they set out to achieve.
    Last edited by erobitha; 07-21-2020, 11:26 AM.
    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
      I don't doubt he could have walked that distance over many hours, many of the era would have, but that for me was not the strange part. It's the time he set off at to be in WC around the time of his sighting of MJK. To start such a long walk that late in evening and through the night, when all sorts of dangers lurk along the way, to me is highly odd. The other odd thing was the almost perfect description he gave of the suspect, when thumbing through the witness reports, no-one has even come close to that level of absolute detail. Abberline took him to be true, and i expect that is good enough. However, as I say, I have yet to put my finger on why he said these things but I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as being the murderer. Why wasn't he used for the seaside home ID? Most likely he had left the area by them and was pretty untraceable or someone in the police no longer trusted Hutchison's version of events. My money was simply on he was least available and Lawende would probably would be a more "respectable" witness. Although they failed to get ultimately what they set out to achieve.
      But why did the met organise the parade and according to you and others use Lawende a city witness, what was wrong with the two forces combining, or the city police carrying out their own ID parade? This is where it all makes no sense from what is written in the marginalia, and clearly shows that the marginalia content is unsafe.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post


        So are you suggesting he lied about walking from Romford and to support this assertion you are claiming that training would need to be undertaken to walk it. Moreso you are saying this at a time before cars and other motorised transport when walking long distances was a fact of life. It makes zero sense.
        Some posters have no comprehension of the times and what the common person had to do to get by.
        We don't know when Hutchinson set off, if could have been in the afternoon. What was common enough to even reach the press was an occasional farmer finding a tramp sleeping in their barns.
        This may have been Hutchinson's plan, he had no money for a doss, so if he planned to spend the night in a farmers barn on the way back to London, but was maybe caught and turfed out?, we would never know.
        Whatever reason he told Abberline was deemed reasonable, that's all we can assume.

        When a poster is fixated on demeaning Hutchinson, they can and do come up with the most irrational & irrelevant accusations to throw against him.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post


          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.
          It's easy to see who is paying attention, and who isn't
          for a well balanced post!
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by harry View Post
            I'm not speculating about Whitechapell, but the capabilities of persons,to do certain things.One only has to watch Olympic walk races to understand my point,and they walk in vest and shorts,not cumbersome and heavy clothing.
            Good grief Harry, walking several miles is not the challenge, we've spent the last 3 million years on our feet!

            The Olympic challenge is against the clock, thats why its a race, thats why they train. Hutchinson was not in a race, he had nothing to hurry back for, so if you are going to make comparison's lets see a level playing field.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

              Leeds going up, make sure you give The Villa a wave on our way down...
              Yeh, commiserations there buddy, the Villa was my father-in-law's team, he'll be turning in his grave about now.
              I just hope Bielsa turns out to be another Don Revie, it's what they need.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                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.
                At the very least those morning sightings would give Hutchinson no sense of urgency to come forward.
                Clearly, in his view, any man he saw her with about 2:30 am, is not likely to be the suspect if she was seen alive 6 hours later about 8:30 am.

                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.

                The Baron
                I would doubt anyone like Kozminski at 23 years old could be identified as a 34-35 year old.
                The age difference is far too great.
                As we can see with the victims, when witnesses estimate their age they tend to guess younger, not older than they really were.

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment






                • 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.[/QUOTE]


                  Correct.

                  Unfortunately the Police, throughout history, appear to believe that it is always the local oddball, despite the fact that it never is.

                  Colin Stagg, Barry George, Stefan Kishko, the bloke who painted eyes on his eyelids in the Steven Wright case, Terence Hawkshaw etc etc

                  Kosminski could just be another?

                  regards
                  If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.

                  Comment


                  • Without referring to any particular poster, regarding Mrs Maxwell I'm just glad I wasn't a witness at the time trying to simply get across what I saw, only for some keyboard "detective" to decide 130 years later that I was drunk, mistaken, scatty, attention seeking, lying or whatever else has been thrown.

                    Maxwell turned up at the inquest and stood up in the most hostile environment, even being warned about her evidence, and stuck to her story rigidly. Plus, other people also said they saw Mary after she is supposed to be dead.

                    Regarding "hardly knew her" Well, there's a lady who moved in over the road from me a few months ago. I've never spoken to her and don't know her name but I would recognise her clearly.

                    And I know I've said this before, but for those who think she got the day wrong just think what her week was.

                    Boring mundane monotony.
                    Boring mundane monotony.
                    Boring mundane monotony.
                    Lord Mayor's show and neighbour killed by Jack the Ripper.
                    Boring mundane monotony.
                    Boring mundane monotony. etc.

                    She misremembered the day. Really?

                    If you're going to dismiss her and her evidence because it doesn't fit what you think you know, fine.

                    But dismiss Lawende, Schwartz, Long, in fact everything.

                    We need to realise that Ripperology does not fit into a nice box with a lid that fits and a pretty ribbon!

                    And everything about Maxwell applies to Hutchinson too.

                    regards

                    ​​
                    If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tecs View Post
                      Without referring to any particular poster, regarding Mrs Maxwell I'm just glad I wasn't a witness at the time trying to simply get across what I saw, only for some keyboard "detective" to decide 130 years later that I was drunk, mistaken, scatty, attention seeking, lying or whatever else has been thrown.

                      Maxwell turned up at the inquest and stood up in the most hostile environment, even being warned about her evidence, and stuck to her story rigidly. Plus, other people also said they saw Mary after she is supposed to be dead.

                      Regarding "hardly knew her" Well, there's a lady who moved in over the road from me a few months ago. I've never spoken to her and don't know her name but I would recognise her clearly.

                      And I know I've said this before, but for those who think she got the day wrong just think what her week was.

                      Boring mundane monotony.
                      Boring mundane monotony.
                      Boring mundane monotony.
                      Lord Mayor's show and neighbour killed by Jack the Ripper.
                      Boring mundane monotony.
                      Boring mundane monotony. etc.

                      She misremembered the day. Really?

                      If you're going to dismiss her and her evidence because it doesn't fit what you think you know, fine.

                      But dismiss Lawende, Schwartz, Long, in fact everything.

                      We need to realise that Ripperology does not fit into a nice box with a lid that fits and a pretty ribbon!

                      And everything about Maxwell applies to Hutchinson too.

                      regards

                      ​​
                      Amrchair detective or not - after 130 years we are much more wiser around the unreliability of witness testimony since then - so I would be cautious of putting too much weight on any of the witnesses testimonies. This attitude of "if we accept one witness testimony, we must accept them all" is not good critical thinking at all. Many of the accounts conflict and contradict, so it will take some unravelling to to get a sense of what is actually true and what is not. This is not trying to fit what suits your own narrative, it simply weighing up all of the pros and cons of each witness objectively. Some said things which were true. Some said things which were not. 130 years on us armchair detetcives must decide for oursleves which is which.
                      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                      Comment


                      • Hello Tecs,

                        I don't consider "mistaken" to be derogatory or disparaging of her character in any way.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tecs View Post
                          Without referring to any particular poster, regarding Mrs Maxwell I'm just glad I wasn't a witness at the time trying to simply get across what I saw, only for some keyboard "detective" to decide 130 years later that I was drunk, mistaken, scatty, attention seeking, lying or whatever else has been thrown.

                          Maxwell turned up at the inquest and stood up in the most hostile environment, even being warned about her evidence, and stuck to her story rigidly. Plus, other people also said they saw Mary after she is supposed to be dead.

                          Regarding "hardly knew her" Well, there's a lady who moved in over the road from me a few months ago. I've never spoken to her and don't know her name but I would recognise her clearly.

                          And I know I've said this before, but for those who think she got the day wrong just think what her week was.

                          Boring mundane monotony.
                          Boring mundane monotony.
                          Boring mundane monotony.
                          Lord Mayor's show and neighbour killed by Jack the Ripper.
                          Boring mundane monotony.
                          Boring mundane monotony. etc.

                          She misremembered the day. Really?

                          If you're going to dismiss her and her evidence because it doesn't fit what you think you know, fine.

                          But dismiss Lawende, Schwartz, Long, in fact everything.

                          We need to realise that Ripperology does not fit into a nice box with a lid that fits and a pretty ribbon!

                          And everything about Maxwell applies to Hutchinson too.

                          regards

                          ​​


                          Great Post Sir!


                          The Baron

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                            Amrchair detective or not - after 130 years we are much more wiser around the unreliability of witness testimony since then - so I would be cautious of putting too much weight on any of the witnesses testimonies. This attitude of "if we accept one witness testimony, we must accept them all" is not good critical thinking at all. Many of the accounts conflict and contradict, so it will take some unravelling to to get a sense of what is actually true and what is not. This is not trying to fit what suits your own narrative, it simply weighing up all of the pros and cons of each witness objectively. Some said things which were true. Some said things which were not. 130 years on us armchair detetcives must decide for oursleves which is which.


                            And you decided the Diary is genuine?!

                            Do you look yourself in the mirror when you speak about weighing up all of the pros and cons?!



                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tecs View Post



                              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.

                              Correct.

                              Unfortunately the Police, throughout history, appear to believe that it is always the local oddball, despite the fact that it never is.

                              Colin Stagg, Barry George, Stefan Kishko, the bloke who painted eyes on his eyelids in the Steven Wright case, Terence Hawkshaw etc etc

                              Kosminski could just be another?

                              regards
                              [/QUOTE]


                              Indeed and if 130 years after Rachel Nickels murder I was presented with Colin Stagg as the suspect I would be suggesting he was a serious POI . But as we know he was totally innocent. Kosminski might be the best we have but it is far from convincing.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                                And you decided the Diary is genuine?!

                                Do you look yourself in the mirror when you speak about weighing up all of the pros and cons?!



                                The Baron
                                Do you mind if I call you David? You seem like a David to me.

                                I believe Maybrick is a viable candidate, and that is more to do with the watch rather than the scrapbook (or diary) as some of you like to call it. I don't believe all arguments against it have the weight of proof for me to be convinced otherwise at this stage. Just because some people enjoy writing long ramblings and murmurings, and as eloquent as they are, does not mean they're in fact correct. As I have already posted before, I am of the opinion that if the scrapbook was faked, it is most likely to try and support another artefact - the watch - of which I am 99% certain is genuine. Based on what I believe to be facts and not point scoring, the scrapbook is about 60/40 in favour of being genuinely written by James Maybrick. The watch though, for me swings it to make him my preferred candidate. But as I posted previously, you can't write a watch or get publishing rights for it - so I guess there is some motivation to create a hoax. As yet, the "diary defenders" for me have the slight upper hand in making their case.
                                Last edited by erobitha; 07-21-2020, 07:23 PM.
                                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X