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

[John Malcolm]

As far as Hutchinson is concerned, his sighting of Kelly with a man (or "supposed" sighting, if you like) would not have actually implicated the man in Kelly's murder - mainly because the time frame between the sighting and the murder would have been undetermined (at best), whereas the sighting by Lawende would have left much less doubt that he saw the murderer, given the short span of time which had elapsed between the event and the discovery of the body of Eddowes. On a side note, I'm inclined to side with Harry D about the ID maybe not being entirely on the level. This is a very complicated scenario for us to even come close to definitively deciphering the precise circumstances. And on another note, I have the very unpopular opinion that, despite The Complete History of Jack the Ripper being one of the best narratives ever written on the subject, it's author is wildly wrong in his assessment of "Kosminski", Anderson and the ID story. That argument is for another time and place though.

[Fisherman]

It is peculiar. My only theory would be that the ID wasn't entirely on the level. Things are sometimes compartmentalized in the police, the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand's up to. After all, why whisk the witness and suspect to a seaside home of all places to begin with?

A good question, of course - although I am actually more inclined to believe in it once that rather peculiar ingredient is added. That is not to say that I DO believe in it (I donīt), only that odd matters like this one makes me prick up my ears.

[Harry D]

... both of these options detracting rather gravely from any worth as evidence. What I always found hard to swallow is the suggestion that these matters would not have been passed down to MacNaghten.

Fumbling in the dark.

It is peculiar. My only theory would be that the ID wasn't entirely on the level. Things are sometimes compartmentalized in the police, the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand's up to. After all, why whisk the witness and suspect to a seaside home of all places to begin with?

[Fisherman]

There are just too many unanswered questions and leaps of faith to make sense of the thing. I'm sure it's been done to death already by eminent researchers on here. There really is no satisfactory answer to the Seaside Home ID. We don't know if they were confusing it with the Sadler ID at the Sailors/Seamen's Home or, perhaps less likely, making the whole thing up.

... both of these options detracting rather gravely from any worth as evidence. What I always found hard to swallow is the suggestion that these matters would not have been passed down to MacNaghten. Or perhaps they were, but more in line with a much lesser inherent weight as evidence, whereupon Mac wrote his memoranda and said "Yeah, yeah, there is of course Kosminski, but personally I prefer Druitt ..."

Fumbling in the dark.

[Harry D]

There are just too many unanswered questions and leaps of faith to make sense of the thing. I'm sure it's been done to death already by eminent researchers on here. There really is no satisfactory answer to the Seaside Home ID. We don't know if they were confusing it with the Sadler ID at the Sailors/Seamen's Home or, perhaps less likely, making the whole thing up.

[Fisherman]

because by that time hutch wasnt considered a reliable witness.

Wait a sec there, Abby: It was his TESTIMONY that was regarded as unsafe to rely on, not the man himself. Dew sang his praise in his memoirs, and Abberline was quite positive about him.

[rjpalmer]

and all the evidence points to lawende as being the witness-sugden clearly and concisely explains it.

Hi Abby, sorry, but I think this is a little naïve (and Sugden himself dismisses the Anderson and Swanson 'solution.')

Lawende was evidently used in an attempt to identify Sadler. It doesn't necessary follow that he was used to identify Kosminski, although, if we adhere to the myth of the "super witness" one might assume that he would have been.

The following is a cynical counter-argument, and I apologize to the police, to the Crown Prosecution Service, and to the hundreds of District Attorneys scattered around the globe, but I think the question needs to be asked.

If one wishes to prosecute a specific suspect, and you have multiple witnesses...

do you chose the most plausible witness? Or do you chose the witness most likely to identify that particular suspect?

I know of a modern case in the U.S.

One witness described a black man running from the scene of the crime. Another saw a white man acting in a very suspicious manner shortly before the crime. So you have two contradictory witnesses. I would suggest we have multiple contradictory witnesses in 1888.

In the above case, the police eventually nab a suspect, who happens to be black.

Which witness do you think they invited to the identity parade? The one who saw a black man, or the one who saw a white man?

One could argue that Lawende was the best witness; on the other hand, one could argue that Lawende was the best witness to potentially identify Sadler.

But then I am a cynical bastard.

[Abby Normal]

Sugden's "Complete History of Jack the Ripper" concludes that it must have been Lawende who was used to try to identify Kosminski at the Seaside Home, but...why him?

Lawende himself noted that he didn't think he could ever recognize the man he glimpsed for a moment, and this would have been years later. Hutchinson, on the other hand, supposedly got a close-up look at the killer and gave a (perhaps too?) thorough description.

Why would Lawende's tenuous eyewitness account be favored? Was he the only witness that was believed? Was Lawende just the best they had? This would suggest several other key witnesses must have been ruled out (such as Schwartz), but I'm not sure how the landed on Lawende as their only hope.

because by that time hutch wasnt considered a reliable witness.

and the "ID" of Koz did happen-although the location may be garbled. Its referred to in some detail by two sr police officers. and all the evidence points to lawende as being the witness-sugden clearly and concisely explains it.

[Michael W Richards]

No one knows As you see, all we can do is speculate.

Some people aren't convinced the identification ever happened, or believe it was confused with another event.

The Pall Mall Gazette refers to a witness identifying William Grant Grainger as the killer in 1895. It's assumed to be Lawende this time, as well, despite the fact he only got a cursory glance at the killer and admitted he wouldn't recognise him again. Hard to believe Lawende would be confident enough to ID someone all those years later. And if Lawende had already identified the Polish Jew, why would they roll him out to ID a completely different suspect?

Not only was his later memory insufficient to make any real identification, it was that way just 2 weeks after the sighting. He said so himself. And as you aptly point out, if he identified a fellow Jew already, what would seeing Grainger accomplish?

Further along that same path....why are we considering people at large as suspects in the Ripper murders in 1896? Didn't a few senior men tell us that it had been dealt with, one way or another. That letter with the GSG quotes got them going again too. Was there ever a seaside identification of a suspect by a witness, both being jewish, and the witness refusing to incriminate the man on that basis?

I think this is merely an example of anti-Semitism in Victorian London. Particularly at the elite levels of society.

[Sunny Delight]

Lawende is the most likely candidate based on the information available. There might be unknown documentation that would change that view but as yet that can only remain a possibility. Why would they have used Lawende? Desperation most likely. He was the best they had. Undoubtedly saw the Ripper. There were question marks with other witnesses whether or not they definitely him. It would seem the timings meant other scenarios were possible- albeit unlikely. With Lawende that was not the case.

[Fisherman]

In a world where there are tangible suspects with proven connections to the case, a mumbled about alleged identification with no substantiation to it would be forgotten double quick. In a world where there are no tangible suspects with proven connections to the case, it becomes pure gold.

Itīs all about the context.

[Harry D]

Sugden's "Complete History of Jack the Ripper" concludes that it must have been Lawende who was used to try to identify Kosminski at the Seaside Home, but...why him?

Lawende himself noted that he didn't think he could ever recognize the man he glimpsed for a moment, and this would have been years later. Hutchinson, on the other hand, supposedly got a close-up look at the killer and gave a (perhaps too?) thorough description.

Why would Lawende's tenuous eyewitness account be favored? Was he the only witness that was believed? Was Lawende just the best they had? This would suggest several other key witnesses must have been ruled out (such as Schwartz), but I'm not sure how the landed on Lawende as their only hope.

No one knows As you see, all we can do is speculate.

Some people aren't convinced the identification ever happened, or believe it was confused with another event.

The Pall Mall Gazette refers to a witness identifying William Grant Grainger as the killer in 1895. It's assumed to be Lawende this time, as well, despite the fact he only got a cursory glance at the killer and admitted he wouldn't recognise him again. Hard to believe Lawende would be confident enough to ID someone all those years later. And if Lawende had already identified the Polish Jew, why would they roll him out to ID a completely different suspect?

[Fisherman]

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 thereīs your explanation.

[The Baron]

The witness identity, except that he was a felow jew, is unknown to us.

And we cannot claim that we know every single person invloved in the ripper investigation.

Other than that, its all assumptions.

They chose to hide his identity and the suspect identity too. You will find the ripper community now dividing between those who make them liars, some in the middle, they don't exactly believe them but not rejecting them completely, and some who believe them.

I persnaly believe them.


The Baron

[Columbo]

Hi Tanta07,

If true that someone identified the ripper at a seaside home, it very well could have been Hutchinson. He would be the only one who could, if he’s to be believed. As I see it most researchers discount Hutchinson as a liar because of his detailed description, and because he is only mentioned briefly in what’s left of the ripper files. Personally I don’t believe any identification of Jack at a seaside home ever happened, and at some point the police stopped believing Hutchinson. But there’s so much of the original files missing we’ll never know.