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

[tanta07]

As with everything else involving the ripper, no one author provides all the information. For a convincing case on Kosminski read "Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect".

Sudgen's book is excellent but far from exhaustive in the suspect department. I usually skip those chapters when I'm re-reading it.

I read Robert House's book back when it first came out. I've been meaning to give it another read. I need to find it - it's currently buried somewhere in my house (I tend to leave books lying all over the place).

[tanta07]

Therefore any ID was more than likely for personal gratification in regards Anderson in particular. [\QUOTE]

Hi all.

Yes, or something I've always thought.

Somehow, maybe during the house to house a la Laptew, a police officer gets a bad feeling about a suspect. He feeds it up the chain and while being considered, the double event happens. Somebody suggests surveillance on the man but arguments ensue.

"We can't spend all that money on watching a man night and day just because a P.C. has a bad feeling."

"O.K. What about that bloke who saw someone near Mitre Square? If he I.D.'s him then......"

Lawende is taken to observe suspect. Gives a reasonably positive response and the surveillance, that we know took place, begins.

I know there's no Seaside home involved. Maybe.that was another occasion? After all we know several I.D. parades took place (wasn't Pizer subjected to one?)

And the I.D. by Lawende would be much closer to the events which makes more sense.

There's no difficulty, such as Swanson described, that I can see. Except...imagine if Lawende had nipped off for a break at the seaside!

"Can't we wait till he gets back? He's only gone for a few days?"

"And what if a woman is murdered in that time? No. It needs to be done immediately. We'll have to go to him."

Now there's a line of research! Find out.that Lawende was at the seaside for a few days in early October and....!

regards[/QUOTE]


If it took place at all, Lawende's identification of Kosminski supposedly didn't take place until 1890 or 1891, over 2 years after the Autumn of Terror.

Also, why it was suggested at all that it took place in the Seaside Home seems to be anyone's guess. The most plausible explanation to me is that the police wanted to be as far away from the prying eyes of the press as possible.

[Scott Nelson]

I think Kosminski's family intervened, botching any police attempts to secure a conviction -- fears of Jewish insurrection and all.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I like the scenario Tecs.

I suppose, assuming Kos was the genuine suspect, and Lawende was a witness, the police would be pursuing to charge for the Eddowes murder, they would need Kos bang to rights for that specific crime. Get him on that, they don't need to prove any of the others because he's already up for a capital offence. Maybe he confesses, maybe not, but he's off to dance a Tyburn jig so it won't matter anyway. So getting Hutch to ID Kos wouldn't bolster the case in the Eddowes trial, Hutch wasn't at Mitre Square. It might assure the police they had the right man but would be meaningless in a trial. So my answer is that Hutchinson wasn't used to ID the same suspect as Lawende because it was not relevant in prosecuting said suspect specifically for the murder of Eddowes. In reality, the suspect could admit to being Astrakhan Man, doesn't make him guilty of any crime, other than against fashion obviously.

[Tecs]

[/Quote]Therefore any ID was more than likely for personal gratification in regards Anderson in particular. [/QUOTE]

Hi all.

Yes, or something I've always thought.

Somehow, maybe during the house to house a la Laptew, a police officer gets a bad feeling about a suspect. He feeds it up the chain and while being considered, the double event happens. Somebody suggests surveillance on the man but arguments ensue.

"We can't spend all that money on watching a man night and day just because a P.C. has a bad feeling."

"O.K. What about that bloke who saw someone near Mitre Square? If he I.D.'s him then......"

Lawende is taken to observe suspect. Gives a reasonably positive response and the surveillance, that we know took place, begins.

I know there's no Seaside home involved. Maybe.that was another occasion? After all we know several I.D. parades took place (wasn't Pizer subjected to one?)

And the I.D. by Lawende would be much closer to the events which makes more sense.

There's no difficulty, such as Swanson described, that I can see. Except...imagine if Lawende had nipped off for a break at the seaside!

"Can't we wait till he gets back? He's only gone for a few days?"

"And what if a woman is murdered in that time? No. It needs to be done immediately. We'll have to go to him."

Now there's a line of research! Find out.that Lawende was at the seaside for a few days in early October and....!

regards

[Sunny Delight]

To each his own, but Paul Begg argues the exact opposite in 'The Facts.'

Lawende didn't see a crime being committed, and thus his testimony could not have led to the suspect being hanged, whereas Schwartz saw an actual physical altercation, and thus his testimony would have been more damaging. I believe that is his reasoning.

"Find the witness" is a game Ripperologists play, but there were multiple witnesses and no one was certain who saw what, including the Met in 1888.

Either way, Anderson's claim is highly dubious on legal grounds.

If the suspect was insane, he couldn't plead; if he couldn't plead, he couldn't stand trial; if he couldn't stand trial, he couldn't hang.

Ergo the witness's testimony couldn't have led to the suspect being executed, which was supposedly the reason why the witness refused to testify.

The more one examines it, the more problematic Anderson's insistence becomes.

I am not a 19th century legal expert so it is difficult to ascertain who exactly was the better witness. Both had flaws- Lawende only saw Eddowes clothing. Swanson seemed to believe the timings were good but the identification of the victim flawed(in a legal sense). Schwartz saw an alercation although Swanson believed there was an issue with timing as in it was possible the victim was accosted by someone else in the period between Schwartz witnessing an assault and Stride's body being found.

Andersons claims to me are possibly a result of two instances. He was a proud man and no doubt was extremely embarrassed by the failure to aprehend the murderer. 132 years later we are much more sympathetic to the Police as they were hamstrung by their lack of scientific expertise. But as we know the Press of the time lambasted the Police and it must have been galling for Anderson. I think that embarrasssment led him to convince himself of Kosminski's guilt. Possibly he felt it saved face but with the world we live in now and so much available online to everyone we can see his claims are seriously problematic. Swanson's add ons only help to add more confusion..

[c.d.]

Lawende didn't see a crime being committed, and thus his testimony could not have led to the suspect being hanged, whereas Schwartz saw an actual physical altercation, and thus his testimony would have been more damaging. I believe that is his reasoning.

Hello R.J.,

That is an excellent point. But a conviction based solely (or largely) on Schwartz's testimony could be tricky as well since Stride was clearly alive when he left the scene otherwise Swanson would have not suggested the possibility of a second man being her actual killer.

The identification might have been to stroke Anderson's ego as suggested or there might have been a practical aspect to it such as okay we can now start to wind down the investigation because we have our man.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

I think Hutchinson was truthful in his account and we must always hold the possibility he mistook the night he had seen Kelly. However in relation to the ID it is obvious that even if George Hutchinson had not erred on the date and was 100% truthful in what he told the Police it was not certain he had seen the killer. The same applies to Scwartz- there was a possibility with both men that in the time between their sighting and finding a body another unknown male could have solicited these women. With Lawende that was not the case. There was no time. It is much more likely he saw the Ripper going by timings.

Something overlooked though is that Swanson felt Lawende's credibility was affected by only seeing Eddowes clothing. Therefore any ID was more than likely for personal gratification in regards Anderson in particular. Talk of the man being condemned by Lawende's testimony(if it was him) is exaggeration in my opinion.

To each his own, but Paul Begg argues the exact opposite in 'The Facts.'

Lawende didn't see a crime being committed, and thus his testimony could not have led to the suspect being hanged, whereas Schwartz saw an actual physical altercation, and thus his testimony would have been more damaging. I believe that is his reasoning.

"Find the witness" is a game Ripperologists play, but there were multiple witnesses and no one was certain who saw what, including the Met in 1888.

Either way, Anderson's claim is highly dubious on legal grounds.

If the suspect was insane, he couldn't plead; if he couldn't plead, he couldn't stand trial; if he couldn't stand trial, he couldn't hang.

Ergo the witness's testimony couldn't have led to the suspect being executed, which was supposedly the reason why the witness refused to testify.

The more one examines it, the more problematic Anderson's insistence becomes.

[Sunny Delight]

My own belief is that the police concluded that George Hutchinson mistook the days, and was in Dorset Street on the night before the murder night. It seems to be what Walter Dew suggested in his memoirs:

"...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?"

If this was the case, then there´s your explanation.

I think Hutchinson was truthful in his account and we must always hold the possibility he mistook the night he had seen Kelly. However in relation to the ID it is obvious that even if George Hutchinson had not erred on the date and was 100% truthful in what he told the Police it was not certain he had seen the killer. The same applies to Scwartz- there was a possibility with both men that in the time between their sighting and finding a body another unknown male could have solicited these women. With Lawende that was not the case. There was no time. It is much more likely he saw the Ripper going by timings.

Something overlooked though is that Swanson felt Lawende's credibility was affected by only seeing Eddowes clothing. Therefore any ID was more than likely for personal gratification in regards Anderson in particular. Talk of the man being condemned by Lawende's testimony(if it was him) is exaggeration in my opinion.

[barnflatwyngarde]

My own belief is that the police concluded that George Hutchinson mistook the days, and was in Dorset Street on the night before the murder night. It seems to be what Walter Dew suggested in his memoirs:

"...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?"

If this was the case, then there´s your explanation.

Spot on Fisherman!

I think that all the evidence points to Hutchinson getting his dates wrong.
Also, it was apparently raining heavily at the time of Kelly's murder, but Hutchinson says that after his "interaction" with Kelly and Astrakhan Man he spent the rest of the night wandering round.
Surely he would have taken shelter in a shop doorway, or a close.

The above is the probable scenario if he was telling the truth about meeting Kelly, the other scenario is that he was just a chancer who saw the opportunity to be escorted round London in the company of detectives for a few days looking for Astrakhan Man, and presumably being fed and looked after courtesy of the police.

[c.d.]

It interests me that the Kosminski theorists place so much faith in Macnaghten...

...yet utterly dismiss his solution: M. J. Druitt.

Why not enjoy the whole rodeo instead of leaving after the calf roping?

Maybe this was their first rodeo.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

Kosminski was incarcerated before Macnaghten knew anything about the case except what he read in the press.

Hello Baron.

1. News of Kosminski's incarceration was never published in the press, so I don't entirely understand your point.

2. Macnaghten joined the Metropolitan Police in May/June 1889. Aaron Kosminski was 'incarcerated' in Colney Hatch in 1891.

Is your suspect Aaron Kosminski or another 'Kosminski' yet to be identified that pre-dates Macnaghten?

If the former, how would Macnaghten not have known about him?

[The Baron]

It interests me that the Kosminski theorists place so much faith in Macnaghten...

...yet utterly dismiss his solution: M. J. Druitt.

Why not enjoy the whole rodeo instead of leaving after the calf roping?

If those informations were gathered by MacNaghten then I won't trust them more than I will trust that Druitt was a doctor.

Kosminski was incarcerated before Macnaghten knew anything about the case except what he read in the press.

To the goalpost, Hutchinson said that the man seen with Kelly had a jewish appearance, so he was not totally useless and his testimony wont detract from Kosminski's identification by another fellow jew witness.


The Baron

[harry]

Hutchinson wasn't used because he was not a Jew,and the identification was not connected with Kelly's murder?
The identification did have one thing in common with AK man though.In my opinion,both were inventions.

[rjpalmer]

-had great hatred of women specially the prostitute class

-had strong homicidal tendencies

-resemble the individual seen by city PC near mitre square

-was identifed by a witness

-was insane

Going up and down won't change anything of this.

It interests me that the Kosminski theorists place so much faith in Macnaghten...

...yet utterly dismiss his solution: M. J. Druitt.

Why not enjoy the whole rodeo instead of leaving after the calf roping?