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

[Fisherman]

Given that Abberline said in 1903 that the only witnesses who were believable were the ones which saw him from the rear or were foreign. This does not fit Hutchinson so this indicates he was not trusted by the police. He had a very short shelf life as a witness as mentioned by Gareth Williams, Chris Scott and Ben Holme


Here's a quote from this website:

"Despite Hutchinson claiming to harbour no suspicion against the man, and maintaining his curiosity was aroused by seeing such a well dressed individual in the area, he immediately contradicts this statement by saying, 'I believe he lives in the area'.

Hutchinson described the man as about, 5ft 6" in height and 34 or 35 years of age, with A dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. Wearing a long Astrakhan coat, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark spats with light buttons over button boots and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache curled up, and dark eyes and eyelashes, he had no side whiskers and his chin was clean shaven. He looked like a foreigner. He carried a small parcel in his hand, about 8 inches long and it had a strap round it, he had it tightly grasped in his left hand, it looked as though it was covered in dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he laid upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly."

That's an awful lot of detail for a night time encounter. How on earth can he differentiate the color of a stone at night time. Eye colour?

Well, Lawende was able to tell that the scarf of the man who spoke to Eddowes was red. It is not as if we can conclude that no colours could be made out in nighttime East End.

[MrTwibbs]

Quite incredible that from the very limited information we have on Hutchinson you have decided he is a weirdo. 132 years later when the man has not been definitively identified you declare you wouldn't believe a word he says. Based on absolutely nothing. I tell you what just for research purposes tonight if you see someone write down how they looked and what they wore. Then tomorrow without looking at what you write today write down again how they looked and what they wore. Then do the same again a few days later. See how many differences there are. Maybe it will be none. Maybe however you will be like Hutchinson and things may differ.

Given that Abberline said in 1903 that the only witnesses who were believable were the ones which saw him from the rear or were foreign. This does not fit Hutchinson so this indicates he was not trusted by the police. He had a very short shelf life as a witness as mentioned by Gareth Williams, Chris Scott and Ben Holme


Here's a quote from this website:

"Despite Hutchinson claiming to harbour no suspicion against the man, and maintaining his curiosity was aroused by seeing such a well dressed individual in the area, he immediately contradicts this statement by saying, 'I believe he lives in the area'.

Hutchinson described the man as about, 5ft 6" in height and 34 or 35 years of age, with A dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. Wearing a long Astrakhan coat, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark spats with light buttons over button boots and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache curled up, and dark eyes and eyelashes, he had no side whiskers and his chin was clean shaven. He looked like a foreigner. He carried a small parcel in his hand, about 8 inches long and it had a strap round it, he had it tightly grasped in his left hand, it looked as though it was covered in dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he laid upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly."

That's an awful lot of detail for a night time encounter. How on earth can he differentiate the color of a stone at night time. Eye colour?
As an experiment go outside at night where there is poor lighting and it is raining and see if it is possible to come up with a description of someone which is as good as Hutchs supposed jew. Hutch must have entirely eaten carrots to have such wonderful night vision. Maybe this is where the "hutch" comes from? if that is even his real name.

[Sunny Delight]

Maybe he was trusted for the following reasons:
he was not a jew
He was male and apparently of military bearing which means he must be trustworthy according to Victorian standards.
He came across convincingly to the police and press because he knew how to spin a good yard and appear confident. Similar to a good salesman. Abberline and co would not be the first and won't be the last to get conned by someone like that.
However If I recall his description of the person he saw with MJK, changed significantly. Complexion and moustache changed along with the addition of new information such as kid gloves. Or perhaps he forgot his own lies. If Hutch has such an eye for detail then how come he couldn't describe MJK as well? did he ever describe the suspect's voice? was it deep? did he have an accent?
Perhaps when he went around with the detectives looking for this supposed jew suspect, his story began to unravel. Just like Paul Denyer's skillful lies unravelled when the police interviewed him. Eventually cracks appeared despite his confidence in his statements Difference here is, is that Denyer is a serial killer and Hutch...well I don't know what he is.

What I do know is that Hutch is a weird chap and I would not trust anything he says. Benefit of hindsight and we have a lot more experience in this area than the police at the time.

Quite incredible that from the very limited information we have on Hutchinson you have decided he is a weirdo. 132 years later when the man has not been definitively identified you declare you wouldn't believe a word he says. Based on absolutely nothing. I tell you what just for research purposes tonight if you see someone write down how they looked and what they wore. Then tomorrow without looking at what you write today write down again how they looked and what they wore. Then do the same again a few days later. See how many differences there are. Maybe it will be none. Maybe however you will be like Hutchinson and things may differ.

[MrTwibbs]

Look, if you feel Hutchinson's entire testimony can't be trusted due to some inconsistencies, that's alright by me. I imagine that's why he wasn't used as a witness later. I'm just trying to figure out why he was a trusted witness at first, and then wasn't.

Maybe he was trusted for the following reasons:
he was not a jew
He was male and apparently of military bearing which means he must be trustworthy according to Victorian standards.
He came across convincingly to the police and press because he knew how to spin a good yard and appear confident. Similar to a good salesman. Abberline and co would not be the first and won't be the last to get conned by someone like that.
However If I recall his description of the person he saw with MJK, changed significantly. Complexion and moustache changed along with the addition of new information such as kid gloves. Or perhaps he forgot his own lies. If Hutch has such an eye for detail then how come he couldn't describe MJK as well? did he ever describe the suspect's voice? was it deep? did he have an accent?
Perhaps when he went around with the detectives looking for this supposed jew suspect, his story began to unravel. Just like Paul Denyer's skillful lies unravelled when the police interviewed him. Eventually cracks appeared despite his confidence in his statements Difference here is, is that Denyer is a serial killer and Hutch...well I don't know what he is.

What I do know is that Hutch is a weird chap and I would not trust anything he says. Benefit of hindsight and we have a lot more experience in this area than the police at the time.

[Sunny Delight]

What we have is urban myths passed down as fact.So one last effort.
Kennedy when he was president in the early sixties,attempted to get Americans to walk more,and various organisations sprang up,and ideas surfaced to attain health and fitness through distance walking.He cited his own experience when he joined the military which was,to become an officer,one had to walk fifty(50) miles in twenty (20) hours,an average of two and a half miles an hour.
Sunny tells us Kelly and Eddowes walked from the hop fields to Whitechapel,a distance of about Thirty one (31) miles ,in Eleven (11) or twelve(12) hours,an average of just over Two and a half miles an hour.Yes,there is a difference of 20 miles,but Kelly was a sick person with no known history of distance walking,or training,while Kennedy was in his late teens or early twenties,military trained,and a history of increasing distance marches.So one of two things.Either Kelly was untruthfull,or the American military p#ss poor.Take your pick.
Hutchinson?Well the distance from Romford to Whitechapel,by road is just over 13 miles,but he was so fresh and relaxed at the end he could stand around for about 45 minutes,then continue walking the streets another couple of hours until his lodgings opened.Puts him on about par with the others.

Scott,
I reckon Kosminski could have been shacked up with Kelly,and when he left,Hutchinson moved in.

So we have hit a dead end. You won't accept fact so there is no point in continuing.

[tanta07]

What we have is urban myths passed down as fact.So one last effort.
Kennedy when he was president in the early sixties,attempted to get Americans to walk more,and various organisations sprang up,and ideas surfaced to attain health and fitness through distance walking.He cited his own experience when he joined the military which was,to become an officer,one had to walk fifty(50) miles in twenty (20) hours,an average of two and a half miles an hour.
Sunny tells us Kelly and Eddowes walked from the hop fields to Whitechapel,a distance of about Thirty one (31) miles ,in Eleven (11) or twelve(12) hours,an average of just over Two and a half miles an hour.Yes,there is a difference of 20 miles,but Kelly was a sick person with no known history of distance walking,or training,while Kennedy was in his late teens or early twenties,military trained,and a history of increasing distance marches.So one of two things.Either Kelly was untruthfull,or the American military p#ss poor.Take your pick.
Hutchinson?Well the distance from Romford to Whitechapel,by road is just over 13 miles,but he was so fresh and relaxed at the end he could stand around for about 45 minutes,then continue walking the streets another couple of hours until his lodgings opened.Puts him on about par with the others.

Scott,
I reckon Kosminski could have been shacked up with Kelly,and when he left,Hutchinson moved in.

I'm not sure what John Kelly's walking ability has to do with the murder in Miller's Court? Hutchinson has to be a liar because...John Kelly can't walk quickly? And then John F. Kennedy comes flying in from left field? Whut?

Look, if you feel Hutchinson's entire testimony can't be trusted due to some inconsistencies, that's alright by me. I imagine that's why he wasn't used as a witness later. I'm just trying to figure out why he was a trusted witness at first, and then wasn't.

[harry]

What we have is urban myths passed down as fact.So one last effort.
Kennedy when he was president in the early sixties,attempted to get Americans to walk more,and various organisations sprang up,and ideas surfaced to attain health and fitness through distance walking.He cited his own experience when he joined the military which was,to become an officer,one had to walk fifty(50) miles in twenty (20) hours,an average of two and a half miles an hour.
Sunny tells us Kelly and Eddowes walked from the hop fields to Whitechapel,a distance of about Thirty one (31) miles ,in Eleven (11) or twelve(12) hours,an average of just over Two and a half miles an hour.Yes,there is a difference of 20 miles,but Kelly was a sick person with no known history of distance walking,or training,while Kennedy was in his late teens or early twenties,military trained,and a history of increasing distance marches.So one of two things.Either Kelly was untruthfull,or the American military p#ss poor.Take your pick.
Hutchinson?Well the distance from Romford to Whitechapel,by road is just over 13 miles,but he was so fresh and relaxed at the end he could stand around for about 45 minutes,then continue walking the streets another couple of hours until his lodgings opened.Puts him on about par with the others.

Scott,
I reckon Kosminski could have been shacked up with Kelly,and when he left,Hutchinson moved in.

[tanta07]

So we can believe Hutchinson was outside Crossingham's opposite Millers Court,does that mean everything else he said has to be true?

I would probably turn that around - would you throw out everything Hutchinson has to say because you don't believe how far he walked that night, even though it can be proven that he was near the murder site around the time the murder took place?

I mean that question semi-seriously. The whole reason I started this topic is to ask why Hutchinson wasn't used to identify a suspect. Is it because they just didn't believe him? Abberline believed Hutchinson at first; what changed in the 2 years after the murder?

[Scott Nelson]

So we can believe Hutchinson was outside Crossingham's opposite Millers Court,does that mean everything else he said has to be true?

And where was Kosminski at that time?

[Sunny Delight]

I am amazed that people will, despite what experts say,believe the Victorians capable of such feats.Fully clothed.What actually did Kelly say,and did Kelly say it was accomplished in one day or more? What physical condition were they at the end of their journey?How many miles were covered?
Did Hutchinson go to Romford on the Thursday,or was it sometime before Thursday? Any other witness than Kelly? Or Hutchinson?
Even more impressive,is the information that John Kelly at that time was a sick man, with a Kidney complaint and a bad cough.Doesn't appear Eddowes was in much better condition.But look,keep these champions coming.I'm impressed.

Why listen to experts when we have contemporary Primary material which clearly shows such feats being achieved. So ok you won't hear of people in the 1880's actually walking long distances- it is unachievable. So why did John Kelly lie? And why did Hutchinson lie? Why didn't Hutchinson if he was lying say he was returning from somewhere an hour away? So if they lied- why?

[harry]

So we can believe Hutchinson was outside Crossingham's opposite Millers Court,does that mean everything else he said has to be true?

[tanta07]

It's probably an indictment of the sorry physical condition of your average Joe today that it seems so unbelievable that folks used to (gasp) WALK to get around.

I'm not so interested in Hutchinson's (disputed) wanderings; what I'm most interested in is that he was in Miller's Court when he said he was. He was almost certainly the man Sarah Lewis saw hanging out in Miller's Court. He could claim to be hiking the Andes the rest of the night for all I care.

[harry]

I am amazed that people will, despite what experts say,believe the Victorians capable of such feats.Fully clothed.What actually did Kelly say,and did Kelly say it was accomplished in one day or more? What physical condition were they at the end of their journey?How many miles were covered?
Did Hutchinson go to Romford on the Thursday,or was it sometime before Thursday? Any other witness than Kelly? Or Hutchinson?
Even more impressive,is the information that John Kelly at that time was a sick man, with a Kidney complaint and a bad cough.Doesn't appear Eddowes was in much better condition.But look,keep these champions coming.I'm impressed.

[Sunny Delight]

The only reference on Eddowes I can find,is that she arrived back in London on foot.What she might have been on in between was not mentioned.
Back to Hutchinson.We have him arriving back in Whitechapel(witness himself),I do not have a time or day he left for Romfod.Someone can surely supply that detail.

Eddowes and Kelly walked the whole way and it took them 11 or 12 hours. That is a fact. Kelly is on record of informing the press this. They walked with another couple for quite a stretch of it. There is no record of when Hutchinson left for Romford only that he returned on foot. I am amazed you feel this feat was unachievable without training or wearing light clothing. Indeed Eddowes and Kelly were in their mid 40's.

[harry]

The only reference on Eddowes I can find,is that she arrived back in London on foot.What she might have been on in between was not mentioned.
Back to Hutchinson.We have him arriving back in Whitechapel(witness himself),I do not have a time or day he left for Romfod.Someone can surely supply that detail.