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]

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.

Yes he did but a scarf is a lot more noticeable than a stone around someones neck and eye color. If I recall correctly, Lawende also said he would not be able to idenitify the man. Hutch also doesn't seem to mention the type of voice the suspect has. is it deep? accented? All the cases i've looked at as part of the true crime show that I run which examines cases all over the world, even witnesses from the modern era who see a suspect during day time don't give a good a description as Hutch did. This is probably what caused the police to lose trust in this supposed witness. He is in my opinion a jackanory. Just my opinion. I have no dog in this fight

[Fisherman]

Yes he did but a scarf is a lot more noticeable than a stone around someones neck and eye color. If I recall correctly, Lawende also said he would not be able to idenitify the man. Hutch also doesn't seem to mention the type of voice the suspect has. is it deep? accented? All the cases i've looked at as part of the true crime show that I run which examines cases all over the world, even witnesses from the modern era who see a suspect during day time don't give a good a description as Hutch did. This is probably what caused the police to lose trust in this supposed witness. He is in my opinion a jackanory. Just my opinion. I have no dog in this fight

Which of the two items is more noticeable is up for grabs, I´d say. But we know that Hutchinson claimed to have been a whole lot closer to A man than Lawende was to the man at the passage leading into Mitre Square, so Hutch has the upper hand in that respect. He would have been feet only away from the seal stone.

The police did not loose trust in Hutchinsons story on account of the level of details. Abberline heard and accepted them all. The distrust came at a later stage and must have had another reason.

In my universe, Hutchinson is George William Topping Hutchinson, of whom his son Reg said that he never had to make a list of which items he needed to bring to a plumber job, he was able to keep them all in his mind. Some people are better observers than others, and the criminal history is lined with people who prove this point.

[MrTwibbs]

In my universe, Hutchinson is George William Topping Hutchinson, of whom his son Reg said that he never had to make a list of which items he needed to bring to a plumber job, he was able to keep them all in his mind. Some people are better observers than others, and the criminal history is lined with people who prove this point.

That is interesting you say that. I believe it was put forward on this forum about 10 years ago that he may have neen Jo Fleming. Sorry if this goes off topic but I also find it interesting that Jo Fleming did not give any statements that we know of and was not called to the inquest.

I'm sure you are all familiar with officer Dan Foukes of SFPD and his witness account in Presidio Heights. He was a highly experienced officer and would go on to be awarded for bravery in the line of duty. He threw himself into the line of fire to protect people.
I've attached his statement from an internal memo or as what SFPD used to call Cover my ass document.

The difference being the street was much better lit (modern 1960s lighting) and he had the benefit of his car headlights
It was not raining
Suspect observed from a close distance.
Fouke has never added more information to his statement as the years have progressed. If anything he has forgotten parts of it but that is expected.
He saw him for about 20-30 seconds and also watched him in his rear view mirror.
And he was actively looking for the suspect in the biggest murder case of the time and therefore had to take note of this person because he is a police officer.

[Fisherman]

That is interesting you say that. I believe it was put forward on this forum about 10 years ago that he may have neen Jo Fleming. Sorry if this goes off topic but I also find it interesting that Jo Fleming did not give any statements that we know of and was not called to the inquest.

We have Toppings signature, and that is good enough for me - he was the witness, as far as I´m concerned.

I'm sure you are all familiar with officer Dan Foukes of SFPD and his witness account in Presidio Heights.

Nope. Never heard of him.

He was a highly experienced officer and would go on to be awarded for bravery in the line of duty. He threw himself into the line of fire to protect people.
I've attached his statement from an internal memo or as what SFPD used to call Cover my ass document.

The difference being the street was much better lit (modern 1960s lighting) and he had the benefit of his car headlights
It was not raining
Suspect observed from a close distance.
Fouke has never added more information to his statement as the years have progressed. If anything he has forgotten parts of it but that is expected.
He saw him for about 20-30 seconds and also watched him in his rear view mirror.
And he was actively looking for the suspect in the biggest murder case of the time and therefore had to take note of this person because he is a police officer.

Well, all witnesses will differ, of course, as will the cirumstances. Foukes saw his man for half a minute in a rear view mirror, and there is no information about the distance. Even if there had been, it would not in any way affect the question whether Hutchinson could have seen what he said he saw. He seems to have had several minutes to make his observations, and he was really up close for some time.

[MrTwibbs]

This is the issue with a lot of you. You're all familiar with JTR but have no idea about other cases (Fouke was involved in the Zodiac case). Which is a shame. So you state that you've never heard of Officer Fouke (he's a more famous witness that Mr Hutchinson) yet you claim that there is no information about the distance. Are you sure of that? just because I didn't mention the distance doesn't mean it was not mentioned elsewhere. You assumed that it was not given because I intentionally left if out of my post.

I wonder why people are so easily taken in by Hutchinson's statement. I suppose if you have a suspect in mind, having someone like Hutch to confirm that it's a rich Jew helps.

[MrTwibbs]

Fisherman, having his signature doesn't mean anything. Many people view graphology as junk science. Similar to polygraphs which by the way are not admissable in a US court (not without consent of all parties which rarely happens) unless you live in New Mexico. There's reasons for this. It's subjective (legendary graphologists Shimoda and Morrill two experts disagreed on occasion) and only as good as the person carrying it out. DNA is also subject to mistakes. There was a case in the US where a man was convicted of rape but they later discovered the scientists doing the testing made a big mistake in the testing procedure. I am not saying I am one of those people that believe graphology is junk science but I will mention that you cannot convict or base a case purely around someone's handwriting which was matched by someone on a forum on the internet. You need a much bigger hand writing sample to ensure the result is accurate.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

Hutchinson was suprised to see such a well dressed man in the area but that does not mean such well dressed men did not live in the area. Have you encountered Booth's map of 1889 charting the different social classes in the Whitechapel area. One of the classes was described as middle class- well to do. They were shaded in red. There was a sizeable proportion situated along the main streets of Whitechapel. Mostly shop keepers or tailors. Have one look at that map and tell me it is impossible Hutchinson saw AK man.

The reason Hutchinson's statement is so detailed is simple. He initially passed AK man near Commercial Street and then after he had told Kelly he was skint he saw AK man approach her. He watches them for whatever reason. Maybe good old fashioned male ego that here was this guy flashy as hell taking Kelly home making Hutchinson look like a bit of a loser. He stops at a street light as AK man and Kelly approach and then stoops to look at the man. He then follows them to Millers Court and watches them for around 3 minutes. He had a good look at this man. He had a long look at this man.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, having his signature doesn't mean anything. Many people view graphology as junk science.

Junk science that is admissible as evidence in a court of law, then. Which is why I personally think that having his signature puts an effective end to any speculations about the identity of the witness.

Similar to polygraphs which by the way are not admissable in a US court (not without consent of all parties which rarely happens) unless you live in New Mexico. There's reasons for this. It's subjective (legendary graphologists Shimoda and Morrill two experts disagreed on occasion) and only as good as the person carrying it out.

Mmmm. And the one who carried out the work on the signatures in this case was Frank Leander, a world renowned authority.

DNA is also subject to mistakes.

And that means that graphology is the same...?

There was a case in the US where a man was convicted of rape but they later discovered the scientists doing the testing made a big mistake in the testing procedure. I am not saying I am one of those people that believe graphology is junk science but I will mention that you cannot convict or base a case purely around someone's handwriting which was matched by someone on a forum on the internet. You need a much bigger hand writing sample to ensure the result is accurate.

Yes, you need at least ten samples, Frank Leander was careful in pointing this out. He was ewually careful in pointing out that if he HAD ten examples, the nine he was lacking were quite likely to confirm the identity.
To me, in combination with how I could easily see the likeness myself, this was enough to convince me totally. And I have had no reason to alter that impression at a later stage. Topping was the witness.

[MrTwibbs]

Hutchinson was suprised to see such a well dressed man in the area but that does not mean such well dressed men did not live in the area. Have you encountered Booth's map of 1889 charting the different social classes in the Whitechapel area. One of the classes was described as middle class- well to do. They were shaded in red. There was a sizeable proportion situated along the main streets of Whitechapel. Mostly shop keepers or tailors. Have one look at that map and tell me it is impossible Hutchinson saw AK man.

The reason Hutchinson's statement is so detailed is simple. He initially passed AK man near Commercial Street and then after he had told Kelly he was skint he saw AK man approach her. He watches them for whatever reason. Maybe good old fashioned male ego that here was this guy flashy as hell taking Kelly home making Hutchinson look like a bit of a loser. He stops at a street light as AK man and Kelly approach and then stoops to look at the man. He then follows them to Millers Court and watches them for around 3 minutes. He had a good look at this man. He had a long look at this man.

"Maybe good old fashioned male ego that here was this guy flashy as hell taking Kelly home making Hutchinson look like a bit of a loser." this is an assumption
As for his statement and seeing AK and MJK. How do you know he saw them? we only have his word for it and apparently the police didn't think much of him either.
Did he describe what MJK was wearing?
did he describe the man's voice?
And more importantly how did the police view his credibility after they took him on a tour of whitechapel?

[MrTwibbs]

Yes, you need at least ten samples, Frank Leander was careful in pointing this out. He was ewually careful in pointing out that if he HAD ten examples, the nine he was lacking were quite likely to confirm the identity.
To me, in combination with how I could easily see the likeness myself, this was enough to convince me totally. And I have had no reason to alter that impression at a later stage. Topping was the witness.

Fisherman, you're entitled to your opinion but as I mentioned earlier graphology is not a perfect science. If it was there would not have been so much controversy surrounding the Mary Jo Bates confession letter in 1966 and the later post Stein letters in the Zodiac case. Which by the way has much more convincing writing material available compared to this case. Interestingly if you google Frank Leander nothing obvious appears in relation to graphology. Google John Shimoda and Sherwood Morril and you get a lot more in relating to document examination. Frank Leander isn't the world renowned expert you claim he is because if he was the likes of SFPD, Riverside PD and The Yorkshire Ripper task force would have consulted with him. They did not. He's a Swedish document examiner with no major credentials. Out of interest who do you think JTR is?

[Sunny Delight]

"Maybe good old fashioned male ego that here was this guy flashy as hell taking Kelly home making Hutchinson look like a bit of a loser." this is an assumption
As for his statement and seeing AK and MJK. How do you know he saw them? we only have his word for it and apparently the police didn't think much of him either.
Did he describe what MJK was wearing?
did he describe the man's voice?
And more importantly how did the police view his credibility after they took him on a tour of whitechapel?

No it isn't an assumption it is speculation. We will never know why but we can try and guess.

We know he saw them because he said he saw them. Do we not believe Schwartz now as we only have his word? Do we not believe Mrs. Long as we only have her word? Or Albert Cadosch? Or Mrs Cox? Maybe she didn't see Kelly enter with the Blotchy man earlier in the night? We only have her word?

He gave a statement which was taken by the Constable. Abberline was called to the station to in his own words 'interrogate' Hutchinson. We don't know what was asked as it has not survived? If you have noticed that he didn't describe Kellys clothing I am pretty damn sure Abberline would have. So did he ask? Incrediblly likely. Same goes for the voice.

We don't know how the Police viewed Hutchinson after searching for the man. That is the simple answer. We have no documentation proving him to still be viewed as crucial or discrediting hin?

[Curious Cat]

When was George William Topping Hutchinson born?

[MrTwibbs]

No it isn't an assumption it is speculation. We will never know why but we can try and guess.

We know he saw them because he said he saw them. Do we not believe Schwartz now as we only have his word? Do we not believe Mrs. Long as we only have her word? Or Albert Cadosch? Or Mrs Cox? Maybe she didn't see Kelly enter with the Blotchy man earlier in the night? We only have her word?

He gave a statement which was taken by the Constable. Abberline was called to the station to in his own words 'interrogate' Hutchinson. We don't know what was asked as it has not survived? If you have noticed that he didn't describe Kellys clothing I am pretty damn sure Abberline would have. So did he ask? Incrediblly likely. Same goes for the voice.

We don't know how the Police viewed Hutchinson after searching for the man. That is the simple answer. We have no documentation proving him to still be viewed as crucial or discrediting hin?

So you're basing this purely on his word? because he tells us he saw them, you believe this? no questions asked? take it on face value. regarding Mrs Long and other witnesses. There are differences between them and your man Hutchinson.

They did not make up an elaborate description of someone who was overtly jewish (which was exactly the type of suspect they hoped for)
They did not hang around looking up at the court for 45 minutes or so. Hutchinson's explanation for this also sends up red flags.
They did not come forward after the inquest after speaking to another lodger which was never corroborated
They do not have a son called reg who later claimed that his father thought it was Randolph Churchill which sounds ridiculous.


How do you account for Abberline saying that the only witnesses worth anything was the one that saw JTR from the rear and the jewish witness (possibly Schwartz or Lawende). Didn't Edmund Reid also state that it was more likely to be a drunk Englishman doing the crimes? Anderson and Swanson believed it was a Polish Jew from the lower classes. Doesn't sound anything like the middle class well to do Jewish man with an astrakhan coat, spats etc. If Hutch was a water tight witness who could apparently identify the jewish suspect then why so much disparity from the police officials in terms of opinions?

My opinion for what it's worth is that Hutch's reasons for coming forward and giving this information was more about explaining his behaviour than telling the truth.

[harry]

The supposed trip to Romford is the,in my opinion, most important part of the statement.It gives Hutchinson,by being back late,the reason he was locked out of his lodgings.It is his excuse for being on the street that morning.Take that away,and what alibi would he have for being outside at two am.
As for the descriptions given by various witnesses,they were in all cases no more than fleeting glances,and none were of person's known to the witnesses.Hutchinson's was perhaps given more attention,because he claimed his sighting was under a light at a distance of no more than a couple of feet,and in those fleeting seconds when Hutchinson claims he was looking the stranger in the face,he was able also to later decribe his clothing and footwear. Believeable?