Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    Vagrancy was a criminal offence. Trespass wasn’t. And in practice, in London, vagrancy was often ignored by the police.


    Thats what the Code said yes.
    My wife watches those English You Tube video's, Abandoned. Those guy's are always saying they can't be charged for Trespass.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    It is important to law enforcement officers that witness statements show a direct link with the crime.In the case of Hutchinson it was important that Aberline believe Hutchinson was there in Dorset Street the morning that Kelly was killed.It would have been the first and most important element of his(Hutchinson) testimony to establish,and there is no doubt that Aberline did establish this to his (Aberline) satisfaction.So it is not a question of what I ,Dew or any Johny come lately believe,Aberline did.
    Aberline did not need Hutchinson to declare Lewis's presence,that was already known,but it was supporting evidence.Lewis must have also been believed by Aberline to have been in Dorset street that same morning.If there was any doubt about the evidence of Hutchinson,his being in Dorset street that Friday morning,is the least likely to be the cause of that doubt.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    The Police Code 1889 lists Vagrancy (any person who is able to maintain themselves, but doesn't, etc.)...."may be liable to one months imprisonment with hard labour". Pg 185.

    Trespass is also listed. Section 1 deals with Poaching.

    Section 2 begins with poaching but the last sentence reads:
    "A person found in any enclosed yard, garden, or area, for any unlawful purpose, may be apprehended as an idle and disorderly person".

    Section 3 begins with:
    "A mere entry upon the land of another not in search of game, &c, is not a criminal offense..."

    Sections 4, 5, 6, & 7, all deal with a property owners rights when a person commits trespass.
    Paraphrasing - Unless the homeowner wishes to assert their civil rights, the officer can only remove the trespasser from the property to the public street. However, what this section does not say is, if the trespasser has no means of support, he can be arrested for vagrancy. I guess that is likely true is most of the cases.
    As it would have been in Hutchinson's case.
    Vagrancy was a criminal offence. Trespass wasn’t. And in practice, in London, vagrancy was often ignored by the police.



    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    The Police Code 1889 lists Vagrancy (any person who is able to maintain themselves, but doesn't, etc.)...."may be liable to one months imprisonment with hard labour". Pg 185.

    Trespass is also listed. Section 1 deals with Poaching.

    Section 2 begins with poaching but the last sentence reads:
    "A person found in any enclosed yard, garden, or area, for any unlawful purpose, may be apprehended as an idle and disorderly person".

    Section 3 begins with:
    "A mere entry upon the land of another not in search of game, &c, is not a criminal offense..."

    Sections 4, 5, 6, & 7, all deal with a property owners rights when a person commits trespass.
    Paraphrasing - Unless the homeowner wishes to assert their civil rights, the officer can only remove the trespasser from the property to the public street. However, what this section does not say is, if the trespasser has no means of support, he can be arrested for vagrancy. I guess that is likely true is most of the cases.
    As it would have been in Hutchinson's case.

    This suggests to me that Trespass alone is not a crime - isn't that also true today in the UK?
    Last edited by Wickerman; 08-07-2020, 01:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    There's one here that shows it was a crime. Not just a matter for public complaint. The officer arrested the tramp for sleeping on private property.
    If the owners had not turned up to speak for him he would have been sentenced.



    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Thanks for all the evidence to show that vagrancy was a crime.

    Do you have any to show that tresspass was?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Was tresspass a crime, Wick?

    And did the fellows above get five days for sleeping in the kiln and nothing for breaking into it?
    It certainly was Gary.

    George Wright, a tramp, was charged with Vagrancy at Watford, on 27th April. Sent to prison for a week.

    Elizabeth Towell was charged with vagrancy at Bushey, on the 20th inst........ Sentenced to three weeks imprisonment with hard labour.
    (she had damaged some property)

    Joseph Thomas, committed for 7 days to H. M. Prison, Worcester, for vagrancy.

    Jas. Smith commited for 14 days for vagrancy.....

    Richard Milner was charged on the information of Detective Laidlaw with begging at Ealing, and was committed to prison for a month.


    It seems the sentences varied across the country, some accounts tell that the vagrant was discharged if the court took pity on them.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Was tresspass a crime, Wick?

    And did the fellows above get five days for sleeping in the kiln and nothing for breaking into it?




    Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-06-2020, 10:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    That aside, the law at the time viewed sleeping under stairs or in doorways as trespass. Officers could charge the vagrant, or just move them on.
    "I walked around all night" became a euphemism so as to avoid a vagrancy charge.
    I posted this before for a different reason, but this is what happens if you sleep on someone else's property - five days in jail.



    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    ........
    PS. Hutchinson never "claimed to be the loiterer seen by Lewis". He never even mentioned her.
    We have no reason to believe Hutch was even aware of Lewis's statement. So he couldn't claim what he didn't know.
    As for his police statement, the police only want to know about his contact with Kelly. What she said & did. Hutch could have seen a number of women passing up and down. Cox came in at three, he doesn't mention her either.
    In the 19th century women were just background noise, they had no legal status in Victorian society, and especially the lower class of women.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    ......Do you actually believe that people dreaded the prospect of being sent to the workhouse so much that it rid the East End of people sleeping rough...? Is this so? And of course walking round in the rain is more of a "contradiction" than walking round on a fair night. It should go without saying.
    Often, if you end up in a workhouse you can't get out.
    It's the way people were treated when they were admitted. You would be handed food, a bed to sleep, and some clothing if necessary, then the next morning expected to work off your debt. Men mainly breaking rocks, while women picked hemp, etc. By the time you were finished, like mid afternoon, it was too late to find work. So, the cycle starts again. Food, bed, and in the morning, work it off.
    Most businesses required those who wanted work to be outside the factory at 6:00 am to see what jobs they had for the day.
    If you were in a workhouse, that was impossible.

    That aside, the law at the time viewed sleeping under stairs or in doorways as trespass. Officers could charge the vagrant, or just move them on.
    "I walked around all night" became a euphemism so as to avoid a vagrancy charge.

    I don't actually believe he walked around all night, but then "all night" isn't quite true, it was already three o'clock, the lodging houses opened about 5:00 or 5:30, I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
    ....... It's simply unnecessary for them to guess or estimate at the time as they both have the same time piece giving them the time at 15 minute intervals in the hour between 2am and 3am.
    That is totally irrelevant, they can both be surrounded by clocks, but unless they say they looked at one we can't assume they did.
    It isn't normal practice to be clock-watching when you're attention is focused on what a female 'friend' is doing with some strange man.
    Hutchinson actually said he knew the time, and only because...he looked at the Whitechapel clock, not the Spitalfields clock, and not at any other time after he left Whitechapel High Street.

    Three-quarters of an hour means hearing the chimes 4 times. Hutchinson knows the amount of time he waited around in Dorset Street as he would've been able to hear the chimes 3 times before the clock struck 3am when he chose to walk away.
    Of course he "could" have heard the chimes, just like Lewis "could" have heard the 2:30 chime when inside Millers Court. However, you do not seem to want to accept that Lewis could hear the chime, but only that Hutchinson could.
    If you insist Hutch heard the chime - without mentioning it, as his reason for knowing when 45 minutes was up, then you are obliged to accept Lewis also could hear the 2:30 chime as her means of confirming where she was at 2:30.


    What other way do you propose he worked out how he was there for three-quarters of an hour?
    Personally, I think he was guessing. I think the officer (Badham) pressed him to think how long he stood there and he/they settled on 'about 45 minutes'.
    Police are always pushing for a time, whereas the witness is often oblivious to what the times were.
    Investigators need times, a prosecutor cannot always lodge a charge if he doesn't know the time something happened. In taking a witness statement Badham knows what he needs, and why.

    You might not know this but, today some older churches still ring their bells on the hour, or half hour, but you can stop anybody in the town center and ask what time was that chime? You'll be lucky if anyone ever admits to even hearing it. Not that they didn't, but it doesn't always register because you hear it so often.
    Your argument depends on people paying attention to clocks & chimes, my argument does not. That's the difference.


    He makes no claim or mention of seeing Sarah Lewis but must've seen her when she approached and entered Miller's Court. So it stands that as he knew the time was 3am when he left and he knew he'd been there three-quarters of an hour then he must've been going by Christ Church clock even if he didn't mention it specifically.
    Only, if he "knew", meaning that he acknowledged the 2:15 chime, which he makes no mention of, nor the 2:00 chime. Therefore, he is likely guessing.
    When he was asked "how he knew the time" why didn't he mention the 2:15 chime, or the 2:00 chime, or what the Spitalfields clock said at any time?
    He didn't because he had no idea what the time was between him leaving Whitechapel High Street, and finally leaving Dorset St. and hearing that one chime at 3:00am.

    She passed The Britannia at about 2:30am. The clock is maybe about a 20 second walk away from that spot. 30 seconds if you really want to push it. The difference in time between passing the clock, walking down Dorset Street and being in Miller's Court would be no more than about 90 seconds each side of 2:30am. That still leaves a window of at least 10 minutes between Mary Kelly going into her room and Sarah Lewis entering Dorset Street going by Hutchinson's account.
    Of course.
    Yet you refuse to admit she could just as easily passed the church clock at 2:15-2:20, and her statement would remain unchanged. Then your 10 minute cushion has vanished. The result then is she is able to see Hutch & the same couple he saw, at the same time he saw them.
    Why avoid the obvious?


    My point is about the particular reporting in The Daily News. As the detail of one of the coroner's questions being asked was mangled -- changing the coroner's words from "suspicious persons in the district," to "suspicious characters knocking about the district," -- then the addition of the phrase "pass up the court" has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It also says Sarah Lewis saw a man in a wideawake in the doorway of the deceased's house. That doesn't scan as the man she saw in the wideawake hat was in Dorset Street, not in the doorway of Mary Kelly's room. Another reason I wouldn't take the "pass up the court" comment at face value in that report.
    The difference is, no-one else saw Hutch standing in the doorway of the deceased house - no confirmation of this. So it can be contested.
    However, someone else did see a couple pass up the court while a man was standing opposite - that is confirmation Lewis is quoted correctly.
    Hutchinson is confirming Lewis. Abberline would know immediately that what Lewis had said must be true.


    It's a calculation, not an assumption.
    When a calculation is based on an assumption, the result is still an assumption.

    It's your assumption Sarah Lewis saw Mary Kelly.
    Yes, I'm assuming Hutchinson told the truth - it was Kelly. Lewis was a witness to this.

    It's your assumption Hutchinson stood opposite Mary Kelly and the man she was with before they entered Miller's Court.
    Based on what he was able to hear, that's a justifiable assumption.

    It's your assumption Hutchinson didn't use Christ Church clock to determine how long he'd waited in Dorset Street.
    The more important point is, it is not reasonable to assume he did if he does not mention it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post


    AK man was never eliminated from enquiries and it is very obvious that any Police force worthly of the name will put equal importance on finding both Mrs. Cox suspect and George Hutchinson's suspect.

    I donīt agree at all. I believe they would have prioritized Coxīs suspect, since they had lost faith to a large degree in Hutchinsons story. If they did not believe in it to the extent they originally did, then how could A man be as interesting as Coxīs man?

    Did AK man become discredited as a sighting? We have nothing in the files to suggest so though admittedly they are sparse.

    Nothing? How about these snippets:

    The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder. The second description induced some particularly-sanguine journalist to declare that it "not only establishes a clue to the perpetrator of the Dorset-street murder, but places the authorities in possession of an accurate and full description of a person who was seen in company with the murdered woman during the night on which she met her death." A man, apparently of the labouring class, but of a military appearance, who knew the deceased, last night lodged with the police a long and detailed statement of an incident which attracted his attention on the day in question. The following is a summary of the statement, and it may be said that, notwithstanding examination and re-examination by the police, the man's story could not be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police at first believed they had - to again quote the journalist - "at length been placed in possession of facts which would open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal." The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution. That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries.


    From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance.

    To be precise, I donīt think that A man was ever discredited as such - that is mostly an invention by those who propose Hutchinson as the killer. But certainly, his impact on the investigation was graded down.


    Dew seemed to only ask us to consider the possibiliy that Hutchinson erred- my key questions like everyones is what did Abberline ask him during the interrogation. For instance

    - Did he ask Hutchinson what kind of hat he was wearing as Lewis had described a wideawake hat. If so Hutchinson must have been wearing one.

    Or Lewis got it wrong. At the time of the Palme murder in Sweden back in 1986, several witnesses who were in place described the headgear of the killer as various types of hats, and others said that he wore no hat at all.
    Witnesses are totally unreliable in matters like these, Iīm afraid. Although I donīt think that Abberline would have been aware of this - if Lewis said wideawake, then wideawake it was. It is not until relatively recently that we have come to understand that it is basically touch and go in cases like these.


    - Did Abberline ask him whether he had seen any other male or female pass by and could he describe them- also could he estimate the time? If not ask how did he miss Lewis?

    No, I donīt think Abberline did this initially. I think he reasoned like Harry: If Hutchinson said he was there, then he was there. It was only later it was brought to his attention that something was amiss, if you ask me. It is the natural order of things.

    - Could he describe what Mary Kelly was wearing?

    - Could he remember the weather? Did he get wet standing at Crossinghams or was the weather ok?-

    I think some of these questions were asked - but not necessarily initially. Some of them would have been asked once it was revealed that Hutchinsons story was shaky.

    Abberline would have asked much more than this but if the answers to this are clear to me as crucial in establishing truth 132 years later- a mere nobody on an internet forum then I am damn sure Abberline satisfied himself on these matters also.
    Whatever he asked, he came away with the impression that Hutchinsons story was on the money, only to shortly afterwards realize that this was not so. But it did not mean that the story was totally discarded, and that is what is truly interesting here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curious Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Singular accounts in the press are taken as solid in the other cases; Nichols, Chapman, Stride, etc. Only in the Eddowes & Kelly cases where questionable theories are adopted to try change the status quo.

    In this case I mean Hutchinson was believed by Abberline - that is the status quo.
    Then, along come theorists (about 15? years ago) with various agendas to try make him into a suspect. Now, every excuse is made to come up with some questionable interpretation.
    Abberline believed his story with no reason given, other than the fact he was smart enough to have realized his witness Sarah Lewis had corroborated Hutchinson's story. He had to have seen at the very least the same four matching circumstances I posted. One by itself is meaningless, all four taken together overshadows any assumed mismatch in the estimated times.
    That's quite a statement given how you've tied yourself in knots to ensure Sarah Lewis MUST have seen Mary Kelly and that she and Hutchinson could only guess at the time despite being right next to the main time keeping object in the area with chimes and visible clock face. It's simply unnecessary for them to guess or estimate at the time as they both have the same time piece giving them the time at 15 minute intervals in the hour between 2am and 3am. Three-quarters of an hour means hearing the chimes 4 times. Hutchinson knows the amount of time he waited around in Dorset Street as he would've been able to hear the chimes 3 times before the clock struck 3am when he chose to walk away. What other way do you propose he worked out how he was there for three-quarters of an hour?

    This is the spot where the corner of Dorset Street would've been:

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.51...4!8i8192?hl=en

    You can see how the clock face is visible from that angle so would have been visible to Hutchinson from the corner of Dorset Street. You'll also see that the distance Sarah Lewis would've walked between passing the clock and reaching Miller's Court would not significantly dent the time of 2:30am, which is the time she goes by using that very clock.

    Is it really so outrageous to suggest that the timings both Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson provide are likely to be correct as they come from the same source within the same hour?

    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    And, just to be clear. The first assumption by Hutch is the time he claimed to meet Mary (about 2:00).
    The second assumption is on our part, the time he may have began his 45 minute vigil.
    Regardless whether he could have seen/heard a clock, he makes no claim to have done so. This means he is guessing on the first count, and we are guessing on the second count.

    Sarah Lewis did not say what time she passed the church clock, only what the time was when she was inside the Keylers.
    The time she could have passed the clock is our guesswork.
    Subtract 45 minutes from 3am. What do you get? It's not an assumption if you go by Hutchinson's reported words of being there three-quarters of an hour and leaving at 3am.

    He makes no claim or mention of seeing Sarah Lewis but must've seen her when she approached and entered Miller's Court. So it stands that as he knew the time was 3am when he left and he knew he'd been there three-quarters of an hour then he must've been going by Christ Church clock even if he didn't mention it specifically.

    She passed The Britannia at about 2:30am. The clock is maybe about a 20 second walk away from that spot. 30 seconds if you really want to push it. The difference in time between passing the clock, walking down Dorset Street and being in Miller's Court would be no more than about 90 seconds each side of 2:30am. That still leaves a window of at least 10 minutes between Mary Kelly going into her room and Sarah Lewis entering Dorset Street going by Hutchinson's account.

    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    The very reason Lewis was called is written right there in her police statement - she saw a suspicious character in Dorset St. opposite Millers Court.
    Errors are not the issue, this is why it is necessary to collate all the sources to flush out the errors. there is nothing in any inquest account which says that couple walked anywhere else except up the court.
    It would be different with conflicting statements, but we have none for this issue.
    All you are doing is trying to dismiss one specific account on the basis that you see another error somewhere else.
    That's a desperate argument.
    No, she didn't say the man opposite Miller's Court was suspicious. She just said she saw a man standing opposite as she entered Miller's Court. She later talked at the inquest of another man in response to a question asking her if she had recently seen any suspicious persons in the district.

    My point is about the particular reporting in The Daily News. As the detail of one of the coroner's questions being asked was mangled -- changing the coroner's words from "suspicious persons in the district," to "suspicious characters knocking about the district," -- then the addition of the phrase "pass up the court" has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It also says Sarah Lewis saw a man in a wideawake in the doorway of the deceased's house. That doesn't scan as the man she saw in the wideawake hat was in Dorset Street, not in the doorway of Mary Kelly's room. Another reason I wouldn't take the "pass up the court" comment at face value in that report.

    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    What I mean is, Lewis does not say what the time was as she passed Spitalfields Church. Only that she had some idea what time she was at Millers Court because she had looked at the clock as she passed earlier.
    You are making an argument based on 'implication', because she doesn't directly say. Therefore, this is an assumption.
    It's a calculation, not an assumption.

    It's your assumption Sarah Lewis saw Mary Kelly.

    It's your assumption Hutchinson stood opposite Mary Kelly and the man she was with before they entered Miller's Court.

    It's your assumption Hutchinson didn't use Christ Church clock to determine how long he'd waited in Dorset Street.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curious Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    12ft wide, would you say?
    This has already been addressed obviously but no, it's not as little as 12ft. However, it is narrow enough to know quite distinctively if someone is walking slightly ahead on the other side of the street so the suggestion that Hutchinson was walking slightly ahead of Sarah Lewis as she approached Miller's Court really does seem ludicrous as far as I'm concerned.

    If we use White's Row as a modern day guide and pretend it's Dorset Street then the entrances to Miller's Court (right) and Crossinghams (left) would be in this area:

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.51...4!8i8192?hl=en

    Just spin the compass in the opposite direction to see Commercial Street and the distance from the street corner.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X