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

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that is the most common sense conclusion. Of course the Police will follow up ALL lines of enquiry and the fact two men needed to be identified will have meant most likely two teams of Detectives following those seperate lines. That is natural. So not so much one half of the Police placing most importance on Hutchinson or Cox but merely two seperate detective teams on the trail of both men.

What I find interesting about Hutchinson is Sarah Lewis statement. She coorborates him yet it is so often dismissed or overlooked. So if he really was there and he actually is truthful was the Ripper after all one of the middle class businessmen so prevalent on Commercial Road. In regards Hutchinson:

- He says he stood opposite Millers Court and sure enough Sarah Lewis states she saw a man standing opposite Millers Court looking up it as if waiting for someone.This at the exacttime Hutchinson said he was in that spot. It must be him.

Everyone seems to have forgotten Thomas Bowyer who was employed by McCarthy and what his input into all of this

Bowyer, was spoken to by the press following George Hutchinson giving his statement about seeing Kelly with a man at 2 am. Bowyer's account is as follows from The Echo

The Echo, 14th November, reported him going “out at different times up Millers Court on the thursday night for the purposes of getting water from a tap there—the only available supply.
Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late—or, rather, as early—as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water tap is by no means an infrequent (sic) thing, as Mr.
McCarthy’s shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all “hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o’clock in the morning, while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning, Bowyer saw a man whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.”

There is, however, an ambiguity in the overall evidence; in his official statement, he does not mention this. As to whether or not he was again spoken to by the police following George Hutchinson coming forward after the inquest we may never know. But what he says in this article if true does go some way to corroborating Hutchinson’s statement.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Curious Cat]

In his newspaper interview he described Kelly:
"Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish.
There is no hard line between being drunk & sober, yet both witnesses describe Kelly as conducting herself as if affected by alcohol.




Hutch does not say when he crossed over to stand outside her window up the court. You are assuming he did that straight away, yet that would not make sense. It would be natural for him to wait for some time, then feeling a little impatient, cross over to see if they were still entertaining.




The press are not part of the detective force, no journalist would ever find out who Abberline spoke to.
You might have missed the orders of Warren who dismissed the press as of nuisance value (my words), that the force is not to entertain their troublesome activity.
Were you aware that the official line (not strictly followed) was to make no statements to the press without official sanction from Warren himself.
The City police had a different, more positive, relationship with the press, but Scotland Yard & the Met. in general merely tolerated them.

Hutchinson says... "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."

He went up into the court first and then waited opposite the passage after for 3/4 of an hour before walking away.

This is still before Sarah Lewis enters Dorset Street. She may or may not have seen Hutchinson standing opposite the passage but if you go by his account then the drunk woman she sees cannot be Mary Kelly.

If the woman Sarah Lewis sees is Mary Kelly then Hutchinson had gone ahead of the couple, which at no point does he suggest doing. He stayed on the corner of Dorset Street and watched Mary Kelly and the man she was with as they stood at the entrance to Miller's Court. He only walked into Dorset Street when they entered the passage. All this is before Sarah Lewis comes along and Hutchinson states that in the whole time he was in Dorset Street neither Mary Kelly or the man she was with left the court. He left after Sarah Lewis had entered the court.

How can the drunk woman Sarah Lewis saw be Mary Kelly if Hutchinson is the man stood opposite the entrance to Miller's Court?

[Sunny Delight]

To specifically address your original question...

The police were still pursuing the Hutchinson story a week after the interview - this from the 19th November.

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

The police had two lines of inquiry to follow up, so it wasn't that belief changed, the police just ran out of leads in both stories.

Do you think the police changed their belief with Mary Cox, why only with Hutchinson?
Both investigation petered out to nothing.

I think that is the most common sense conclusion. Of course the Police will follow up ALL lines of enquiry and the fact two men needed to be identified will have meant most likely two teams of Detectives following those seperate lines. That is natural. So not so much one half of the Police placing most importance on Hutchinson or Cox but merely two seperate detective teams on the trail of both men.

What I find interesting about Hutchinson is Sarah Lewis statement. She coorborates him yet it is so often dismissed or overlooked. So if he really was there and he actually is truthful was the Ripper after all one of the middle class businessmen so prevalent on Commercial Road. In regards Hutchinson:

- He says he stood opposite Millers Court and sure enough Sarah Lewis states she saw a man standing opposite Millers Court looking up it as if waiting for someone.This at the exacttime Hutchinson said he was in that spot. It must be him.

[Wickerman]

We have no idea when Hutch set off from Romford, as I said in a previous post, he could have set off in the afternoon or early evening, and catch some sleep on the way. The homeless, or tramps, were often found sleeping on farm property by farmers.



As with most of the criticisms against Hutchinson. We can't accuse him of something for which we have no information.

[Fisherman]

my problem isnt with hutch or anyone making a trek like that on foot. apparently long joirneys on foot were common back then. ts that he apparently started at night and did so knowing he had no place to stay once he got there.

I don´t know if you saw my former post, so I´ll reiterate it. Imagine that Hutchinson was penniless. Maybe he tried for the longest to find a place where he could crash in Romford, but failed. Then, late at night and fully aware that he would have to spend the rest of the night on the streets of Romford, he decides that he stands a better chance of shacking up with somebody in the East End, where he knew people, and so he opted for it being the better choice. And off he went.

Just a suggestion, but I don´t see anything strange in it. Do you?

[Wickerman]

Please expand? This topic has gone all over the place in the last 17 pages, but I'm still genuinely curious about my initial question from the first post. It seems Hutchinson was at first believed to have gotten a good view of the Ripper, but then later it seems that belief changed. Why?

To specifically address your original question...

The police were still pursuing the Hutchinson story a week after the interview - this from the 19th November.

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

The police had two lines of inquiry to follow up, so it wasn't that belief changed, the police just ran out of leads in both stories.

Do you think the police changed their belief with Mary Cox, why only with Hutchinson?
Both investigation petered out to nothing.

[Wickerman]

Not that it matters, but I honestly believe that if anyone swallows the Abberline/Hutchinson/Kelly/Mr Astrakhan scenario they seriously need their brains testing.

Simon, didn't someone describe you as the King of Conspiracy theories?
Feet on the ground my friend....feet on the ground.

[Wickerman]

Where does Hutchinson say Mary Kelly was tipsy? In the Pall Mall Gazette he says she didn't appear to be drunk. How could she suddenly be "in drink" if she didn't consume anything in between Hutchinson first meeting her and being seen by Sarah Lewis?

In his newspaper interview he described Kelly:
"Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish.
There is no hard line between being drunk & sober, yet both witnesses describe Kelly as conducting herself as if affected by alcohol.

Hutchinson had followed Mary Kelly and the man he saw her with to Dorset Street, had a little mooch around outside her room in Miller's Court and then went back out to Dorset Street through the passage. He stood across the road, opposite the entrance of the passage. This was all before Sarah Lewis came into Dorset Street and Hutchinson said Mary Kelly didn't leave Miller's Court in the 3/4 of an hour he stood opposite the passage.

How could the woman Sarah Lewis saw along Dorset Street possibly be Mary Kelly?

Hutch does not say when he crossed over to stand outside her window up the court. You are assuming he did that straight away, yet that would not make sense. It would be natural for him to wait for some time, then feeling a little impatient, cross over to see if they were still entertaining.

If Hutchinson said he saw a policeman, why would Abberline not talk to that policeman to confirm the detail? If he did, how did that not filter down and out as as being part of the investigation? I don't know where I would read of him speaking to the constables but is there a reason it would be kept quiet?

The press are not part of the detective force, no journalist would ever find out who Abberline spoke to.
You might have missed the orders of Warren who dismissed the press as of nuisance value (my words), that the force is not to entertain their troublesome activity.
Were you aware that the official line (not strictly followed) was to make no statements to the press without official sanction from Warren himself.
The City police had a different, more positive, relationship with the press, but Scotland Yard & the Met. in general merely tolerated them.

[Sunny Delight]

Not that it matters, but I honestly believe that if anyone swallows the Abberline/Hutchinson/Kelly/Mr Astrakhan scenario they seriously need their brains testing.

Yeah and the Earth is flat and Bill Gates is behind Covid.

[tanta07]

Not that it matters, but I honestly believe that if anyone swallows the Abberline/Hutchinson/Kelly/Mr Astrakhan scenario they seriously need their brains testing.

Please expand? This topic has gone all over the place in the last 17 pages, but I'm still genuinely curious about my initial question from the first post. It seems Hutchinson was at first believed to have gotten a good view of the Ripper, but then later it seems that belief changed. Why?

[Curious Cat]

Not that it matters, but I honestly believe that if anyone swallows the Abberline/Hutchinson/Kelly/Mr Astrakhan scenario they seriously need their brains testing.

I don't believe Hutchinson's account of the man he says he saw with Mary Kelly. For one thing, if you stand outside The Queen's Head pub you can't see down along the east side of Commercial Street beyond the corner of Fashion Street. It goes at an angle at that point. He says he watched them the whole time but they would've been out of sight when he stood outside The Queen's Head.

[harry]

I cannot imagine the Ripper would walk 13 miles from Romford to murder a victim,when h could have found a victim in Romford.

[Simon Wood]

Not that it matters, but I honestly believe that if anyone swallows the Abberline/Hutchinson/Kelly/Mr Astrakhan scenario they seriously need their brains testing.

[Curious Cat]

I'm sorry you've lost me there.
If Hutch described Kelly as 'tipsy', and Lewis described the woman as 'in drink', doesn't that amount to the same thing?

Where does Hutchinson say Mary Kelly was tipsy? In the Pall Mall Gazette he says she didn't appear to be drunk. How could she suddenly be "in drink" if she didn't consume anything in between Hutchinson first meeting her and being seen by Sarah Lewis?

But that's because - if Hutchinson is telling the truth - Sarah Lewis cannot have seen Mary Kelly. The drunk woman she saw must have been someone else.

Hutchinson had followed Mary Kelly and the man he saw her with to Dorset Street, had a little mooch around outside her room in Miller's Court and then went back out to Dorset Street through the passage. He stood across the road, opposite the entrance of the passage. This was all before Sarah Lewis came into Dorset Street and Hutchinson said Mary Kelly didn't leave Miller's Court in the 3/4 of an hour he stood opposite the passage.

How could the woman Sarah Lewis saw along Dorset Street possibly be Mary Kelly?

Where would you expect to read of Abberline speaking to any constables?

If Hutchinson said he saw a policeman, why would Abberline not talk to that policeman to confirm the detail? If he did, how did that not filter down and out as as being part of the investigation? I don't know where I would read of him speaking to the constables but is there a reason it would be kept quiet?

[Wickerman]

However, we seem to agree that the drunk woman seen along Dorset Street cannot have been Mary Kelly if Hutchinson is telling the truth.

I'm sorry you've lost me there.
If Hutch described Kelly as 'tipsy', and Lewis described the woman as 'in drink', doesn't that amount to the same thing?

...... Who was on beat along Crispin Street the same night? Why do neither appear to be have been asked by Aberline what they saw or heard while on patrol?

Where would you expect to read of Abberline speaking to any constables?