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

[Fisherman]

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?

No major credentials? He was the top authority in SKL for many years and travelled the world lecturing on handwriting analysis. He started out in 1973, and has worked on thousands of cases for the police, being an authority who has decided many, many cases in court. I think you will have a hard time finding a graphologist with a greater name in Europe and throughout the world.

But of course, I realize that all you have to do is to go: "Bah! Graphology is not reliable", and your problem is out of the world. And then you can cite a case or two were there were problems in the context of graphology. Comfortable enough!

I do it differently, quite simply. And I am quite content to say that the identity of the witness is established beyond reasonable doubt.

So the territories are staked out.

Letīs take it from there, shall we?

[Sunny Delight]

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.

If the Abberline interrogation notes had survived we would know much more. As it was Abberline questioned Hutchinson for a few hours- he was obviously satisfied that what he was told was within reason. That is the key. To us now it all looks too much, too detailed, too elaborate. But Abberline did not throw out the statement for being too fantastical did he? On the contrary he saw it as truthful. How does one account for that?

Walter Dew wrote that he felt it was Mrs. Cox suspect who was the Ripper. And yet this was what he said about Hutchinson-

"Hutchison described him as well-dressed, wearing a felt hat, a long, dark astrakhan collared coat and dark spats. A turned-up black moustache gave him a foreign appearance.

But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.

Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man.".

[harry]

Aberline did submit a statement of interview,and it was/is available.It was permissable to question a witness or suspect without taking written notes,but was not normally considered a good thing to do.Would Depend on the circumstances.
Curious thing about Walter Dew.He was writing fifty years after the event,and expected his memory of events to be accepted,yet wrote that testimony given within a few short days(Hutchinson)be viewed as uncertain due to memory.Very curious.

[Sunny Delight]

The most important thing is what Walter Dew did not write. He did not say that a man dressed as he was and described in such detail was suspicious. Nor does he say something like, 'we quickly learned that a man of this description would not have ventured into the area'. Or Hutchinson was soon discredited as his sighting was too fantastical.

Dew does not say that. Indeed he is at pains not to judge the charactar of Hutchinson or Mrs. Maxwell but felt they must have been mistaken as to the day. And maybe thats what it was- maybe they began to believe after further enquiries that Hutchinson had got the day wrong. I do believe though in the truthfulness of his statement.

[Wickerman]

Aberline did submit a statement of interview,and it was/is available.

Certainly, and that is also normal. His own interrogation would have been far more detailed, and would remain with him, so the initial interview conducted by Badham would now be superfluous for Abberline, he forwards it on to Scotland Yard.

It was permissable to question a witness or suspect without taking written notes,but was not normally considered a good thing to do.Would Depend on the circumstances.

Exactly, we don't know, but we do know Abberline was one of the best in the business as far as Scotland Yard was concerned, so we can allow him the benefit of the doubt that he would follow procedure especially in a case as high profile as this.

Curious thing about Walter Dew.He was writing fifty years after the event,and expected his memory of events to be accepted,yet wrote that testimony given within a few short days(Hutchinson)be viewed as uncertain due to memory.Very curious.

Just let me sit down a minute.....
You actually made a statement that could be viewed as beneficial to Hutchinson? - I'm shocked!

[Wickerman]

If the Abberline interrogation notes had survived we would know much more. As it was Abberline questioned Hutchinson for a few hours- he was obviously satisfied that what he was told was within reason. That is the key. To us now it all looks too much, too detailed, too elaborate. But Abberline did not throw out the statement for being too fantastical did he? On the contrary he saw it as truthful. How does one account for that?

Well, Hutchinson saw a policeman pass the top of Dorset St., Abberline would be able to identify the constable should on that beat and could interview him and check his pocket book. There may have been something that supported what Hutchinson said.

We also have the more detailed account of Sarah Lewis, as provided in several newspapers, of her Inquest testimony where she mentioned a man standing opposite the court in Dorset St. (Hutch?) while another man & woman walked ahead of her and entered the court, the female being hatless and partly drunk.
By the time Lewis herself reached the court, there was no-one in the court. Naturally implying, who ever this couple was they must have gone indoors.
Lewis admitted she did not know Kelly by sight.
If there had been any suspicions about Hutchinson, or the story he told, they had Lewis's address and could easily have reached out to her for confirmation.

[Curious Cat]

Well, Hutchinson saw a policeman pass the top of Dorset St., Abberline would be able to identify the constable should on that beat and could interview him and check his pocket book. There may have been something that supported what Hutchinson said.

We also have the more detailed account of Sarah Lewis, as provided in several newspapers, of her Inquest testimony where she mentioned a man standing opposite the court in Dorset St. (Hutch?) while another man & woman walked ahead of her and entered the court, the female being hatless and partly drunk.
By the time Lewis herself reached the court, there was no-one in the court. Naturally implying, who ever this couple was they must have gone indoors.
Lewis admitted she did not know Kelly by sight.
If there had been any suspicions about Hutchinson, or the story he told, they had Lewis's address and could easily have reached out to her for confirmation.

BIB 1 - When/where did he say that and which end of Dorset Street did he mean?

BIB 2 - Where does Sarah Lewis say the couple entered the court?

[Sunny Delight]

Well, Hutchinson saw a policeman pass the top of Dorset St., Abberline would be able to identify the constable should on that beat and could interview him and check his pocket book. There may have been something that supported what Hutchinson said.

We also have the more detailed account of Sarah Lewis, as provided in several newspapers, of her Inquest testimony where she mentioned a man standing opposite the court in Dorset St. (Hutch?) while another man & woman walked ahead of her and entered the court, the female being hatless and partly drunk.
By the time Lewis herself reached the court, there was no-one in the court. Naturally implying, who ever this couple was they must have gone indoors.
Lewis admitted she did not know Kelly by sight.
If there had been any suspicions about Hutchinson, or the story he told, they had Lewis's address and could easily have reached out to her for confirmation.

Indeed. We do not know what the interrogation consisted of so we do not know how many outstanding questions have been left unanswered. My guess is very few. If amateur detectives 132 years later can see where the gaps are I am damn sure Abberline did too.

I am curious as to this couple Lewis saw? Here is the extract from the inquest:

" When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake.(note: this must be Hutchinson), There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court".

Lewis doesn't mention a hatless woman at the inquest. Maybe she did in the papers? From my reading of it as she went into the Court she spots Hutchinson- probably just as she is about to enter the walkway. It is a fleeting glance and thus her description of him is very limited. The rest of what Lewis says is open to interpretation. My own view is that further on Commercial Street there was a man and woman with the latter drunk. What is very intriguing though is how did Lewis know this? Was it her actions or was she stumbling around? We will never get the chance to ask now. And when did she see them? Was it before she spotted Hutchinson?

For me though when all is said and done I believe George Hutchinson and believe he was a key witness who has been unfairly tarnished and denigrated when he could be the key to finding the Ripper.

[Wickerman]

BIB 1 - When/where did he say that and which end of Dorset Street did he mean?

One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street.
Star, 14 Nov.

BIB 2 - Where does Sarah Lewis say the couple entered the court?

I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Daily News, 13 Nov.

[Sunny Delight]

One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street.
Star, 14 Nov.



I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Daily News, 13 Nov.

The Daily News seemed to have picked the segment up wrongly as they have Lewis seeing Hutchinson standing outside the deceased house.

"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one.".

Or should that read "at the doorway". She only noticed Hutchinson when she was up the laneway leading to the court. Which would then lead to:

"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court".

Could this then have been one of the other ladies who lived in the court bringing home a client? They pass 'up' the Court to one of the top rooms? Just putting out some thoughts.

When asked about the 'murder' scream she would hear Lewis said she:

"did not take any notice, especially as a short time before there had been a row in the court."

Who would have been rowing in the Court. Did anyone else mention this? Could it have been a Prostitute and her client? Didn't Mrs. Cox go back out at half 1 again or am I mistaken? Could she have returned with a client seen by Lewis who then hears them quarreling later?

[Wickerman]

Lewis doesn't mention a hatless woman at the inquest. Maybe she did in the papers? From my reading of it as she went into the Court she spots Hutchinson- probably just as she is about to enter the walkway. It is a fleeting glance and thus her description of him is very limited. The rest of what Lewis says is open to interpretation. My own view is that further on Commercial Street there was a man and woman with the latter drunk. What is very intriguing though is how did Lewis know this? Was it her actions or was she stumbling around? We will never get the chance to ask now. And when did she see them? Was it before she spotted Hutchinson?

It's a matter of piecing all the details together from the various press reports, c/w the inquest testimony.
What we notice is that Lewis never said that she saw a man standing there - as she walked towards Millers Court. Lewis says she only noticed the man as she arrived at the court:

"When she went into the court she saw a man standing near the lodging-house door opposite. He was wearing a wideawake hat, and was not very tall, but was a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court, and seemed to be waiting for someone. She also saw another man and woman coming along, the latter having her hat off, and being the worse for drink".
Morning Advertiser, 13 Nov.

Also:
"When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House".

However, moments earlier, as she approached the court she noticed a man & woman "further on". Some have tried to argue she meant further on down Dorset St. passed the court.
Though, if this couple were further on down the street, they couldn't pass up the court - that is only common sense.
Which means the "further on" could only mean 'further on ahead of me' (Lewis), and walking on the same side of the street.

So when we read:
The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court

We can see they are two separate statements. They must be separate because Lewis only noticed the 'standing man' when she arrived at the court.
If she had seen a couple "further on", when she arrived at the court, they obviously couldn't pass up the same court where she is now standing, they would be further on down the street.

Therefore, the line:
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink".
Is a new sentence describing her approach to the court, before she noticed the man standing opposite.

Clearly, in all we have three separate statements all put together:
1 - The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one.
2 - Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.
3 - There was nobody in the court.

There must have been questions between each of these statements, but when the press put them all together it can lead to a misinterpretation of what Sarah Lewis saw.

If we placed those three statements in the order that they occurred, we would read:

(what she saw as she approached the court)
2 - Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.

(as Lewis arrived at the court, she saw a man standing opposite)
1 - The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one.

(once she was in the court herself)
3 - There was nobody in the court.

So, now even in the Daily News account, the second sentence, sequentially preceded the first:

(as I approached the court)
I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.

(as I arrived at the court)
I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one.

As I've always maintained - Sarah Lewis confirmed part of Hutchinson's story.

[Curious Cat]

It's a matter of piecing all the details together from the various press reports, c/w the inquest testimony.
What we notice is that Lewis never said that she saw a man standing there - as she walked towards Millers Court. Lewis says she only noticed the man as she arrived at the court:

"When she went into the court she saw a man standing near the lodging-house door opposite. He was wearing a wideawake hat, and was not very tall, but was a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court, and seemed to be waiting for someone. She also saw another man and woman coming along, the latter having her hat off, and being the worse for drink".
Morning Advertiser, 13 Nov.

Also:
"When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House".

However, moments earlier, as she approached the court she noticed a man & woman "further on". Some have tried to argue she meant further on down Dorset St. passed the court.
Though, if this couple were further on down the street, they couldn't pass up the court - that is only common sense.
Which means the "further on" could only mean 'further on ahead of me' (Lewis), and walking on the same side of the street.

So when we read:
The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court

We can see they are two separate statements. They must be separate because Lewis only noticed the 'standing man' when she arrived at the court.
If she had seen a couple "further on", when she arrived at the court, they obviously couldn't pass up the same court where she is now standing, they would be further on down the street.

Therefore, the line:
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink".
Is a new sentence describing her approach to the court, before she noticed the man standing opposite.

Clearly, in all we have three separate statements all put together:
1 - The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one.
2 - Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.
3 - There was nobody in the court.

There must have been questions between each of these statements, but when the press put them all together it can lead to a misinterpretation of what Sarah Lewis saw.

If we placed those three statements in the order that they occurred, we would read:

(what she saw as she approached the court)
2 - Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.

(as Lewis arrived at the court, she saw a man standing opposite)
1 - The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one.

(once she was in the court herself)
3 - There was nobody in the court.

So, now even in the Daily News account, the second sentence, sequentially preceded the first:

(as I approached the court)
I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.

(as I arrived at the court)
I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one.

As I've always maintained - Sarah Lewis confirmed part of Hutchinson's story.

It seems there's been a conflation here by the Morning Advertiser as the the woman Sarah Lewis saw without a hat is the woman she passed outside The Britannia pub, on the corner of Dorset Street as she entered it.

Sarah Lewis saw three men and two women. A man Sarah Lewis had had an encounter with the night before was talking with a hatless woman outside The Britannia pub, the man and a drunk woman walking together on the same side of Dorset Street as Sarah Lewis and a lone man standing directly opposite the entrance to Miller's Court on the other side of Dorset Street.

If the lone man standing opposite Miller's Court is Hutchinson...the drunk woman Sarah Lewis sees walking with the other man in Dorset Street literally cannot be Mary Kelly. Even if the couple did go into the court via the passage it's impossible for the woman to be Mary Kelly if Hutchinson is telling the truth. The Daily News suggests Sarah says both the man and woman were worse for drink, which doesn't correlate with what Hutchinson said about Mary Kelly and the man he said he saw her with.

If the police beats were around the 12-15 minute mark to do a circuit, Hutchinson should've seen that same policeman at least three times while he was in that area - possibly at least once while he was on Commercial Street either before or after being in Dorset Street. The policeman on that beat should easily have been tracked down. Who/where was he?

[harry]

As to the two statements submitted,one by Aberline,(A statement of interview), the other by Badham(record of interview),both could have originated from an interview at which both Aberline and Badham were present,at which nothing was written down.Following this initial interrogation,as Aberline describes it,Aberline could have instructed Badham to take a record of interview,while himself submitting a statement of interview. Badham is not known to have said/wrote anything in Hutchinson favour,While Aberline only expressed an opinion.Does this matter?Well it is the most descriptive of a person observed in suspicious circumstances,yet Hutchinson,who claimed he would recognise the person,was never asked to identify anyone.

Jon,
I made a statement beneficial to Hutchinson. How?I have always maintained that Hutchinson was telling the truth about being outside Crossingham's that Friday morning.How is that beneficial?

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Wickerman]

It seems there's been a conflation here by the Morning Advertiser as the the woman Sarah Lewis saw without a hat is the woman she passed outside The Britannia pub, on the corner of Dorset Street as she entered it.

Sarah Lewis makes no mention of a woman outside the Britannia without a hat, that was Mrs Kennedy.
Lewis saw one woman & one man outside the Britannia, whereas Kennedy had previously seen two women and one man. One of the women being without any headgear.

If the lone man standing opposite Miller's Court is Hutchinson...the drunk woman Sarah Lewis sees walking with the other man in Dorset Street literally cannot be Mary Kelly. Even if the couple did go into the court via the passage it's impossible for the woman to be Mary Kelly if Hutchinson is telling the truth. The Daily News suggests Sarah says both the man and woman were worse for drink, which doesn't correlate with what Hutchinson said about Mary Kelly and the man he said he saw her with.

Perhaps you have not read all the quotes.
Here, in the Daily Telegraph we read:

"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink".

Lewis is only identifying the women (the later) as being "in drink".

Likewise, in the morning Post.

"She also saw another man and woman coming along, the latter having her hat off, and being the worse for drink".

So there should be no mistake as to which one of the two was "in drink", or that it was only the woman being described.

If the police beats were around the 12-15 minute mark to do a circuit, Hutchinson should've seen that same policeman at least three times while he was in that area - possibly at least once while he was on Commercial Street either before or after being in Dorset Street. The policeman on that beat should easily have been tracked down. Who/where was he?

True, he should have seen a constable more than once, but he doesn't say how many times he saw him, just that the (one) constable he saw did not come down the street. Commercial St. was over a hundred feet away. Was he looking out for constables?, probably not. Or did he mean he only noticed one constable, meaning the PC could have passed without Hutch noticing him?

There is a sketch in the Illustrated Police News of 24 Nov.
The face of the constable is just left of center, with a beard. His no. is L63, researchers have traced who he was, I just don't recall the name.