Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[caz]

Hi Ben,

I finally caught up with this thread and just noticed this:

...I apologise and retract that remark. I over-reacted.

...hoping we can put that behind us now.

That's very gracious of you and of course I accept your apology and yes, I think it's safe to say that it's a long way behind us now.

It isn't impossible that Hutchinson was considered a suspect once it transpired that his story didn't mesh up, but in the absence of anything concrete to rule him out as a suspect, they're only option was to keep him under surveillance in the event of other murders being committed over the ensuing months, and of course none were.

Just a quickie here: keeping a suspect under surveillance was obviously not their only option, regardless of who that suspect was. Just because they chose not to stick certain men in front of the assorted witnesses they had managed to acquire over the months, doesn't mean they would not have attempted to get Lewis, Lawende et al to identify Hutch if they had considered him a suspicious enough character to warrant putting him under any kind of surveillance.

They hadn't given up hope by mid-November of ever identifying the ripper, short of catching him in the act 'over the ensuing months', or they wouldn't have bothered appealing for information from the person or persons closest to him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Just because they chose not to stick certain men in front of the assorted witnesses they had managed to acquire over the months, doesn't mean they would not have attempted to get Lewis, Lawende et al to identify Hutch if they had considered him a suspicious enough character to warrant putting him under any kind of surveillance.

But there's no evidence of any identity parades with Joseph Lawende taking place at the time of the murders, despite the fact that many "suspicious" individuals came to the attention of the police. There's no evidence that Joseph Barnett, for example, was paraded before earlier witnesses. The only witnesses known to have been used in identity attempts at the time of the murders were the ones who reported a suspicious blood-stained man in Mrs. Fiddymont's pub in the wake of the Chapman murder, and included Fiddymont herself, with Lawende only being wheeled in much later.

Lawende's professed doubt as to his ability to recognise the man again would also have weighed heavily in Hutchinson's favour if he was the man witnessed by the Jewish trio near Mitre Square. Hutchinson, of course, could not have risked relying on that "doubt" to be well-founded, and yet unbeknown to him, Lawende reiterated that doubt privately to other very senior police officials.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

Well now I'm back here with my New Best Suspect, Mr Blotchy-Face.

Ben, I don't think the police would have had an identity parade--I don't even know if that was part of procedure then. However I do think it's likely that they would have shown Hutchinson to Sarah Lewis and asked her if that was the man she saw. If she says 'no', they stop believing in him and start looking for Blotchy. Witnesses are notoriously inaccurate, so it's still possible that Lewis saw Hutchinson even if she said she didn't.

However the unanswerable fact remains that the police did not make too much of Hutchinson, and there is nowhere, as far as I am aware, in the files a suggestion that he might have been the killer. I would agree with you, that he is a very murky figure in this, and one I'd like to take into the back room and have a chat with!

[Ben]

Good points, Chava.

If Hutchinson had anything he wished to conceal about his actions and movements on the night in question, he had nothing really to lose from Lewis being asked to identify him as the Wideawake man. If she confirmed it, all Hutchinson has to say was, "See? She corroborates my story. I was there, just as I said I was", but if she was not sure or said no, the worst he could expect was a right royal ticking off for pretending to be near the crime scene when he wasn't (which would have been a great result if he was there and up to no good).

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

But there's no evidence of any identity parades with Joseph Lawende taking place at the time of the murders, despite the fact that many "suspicious" individuals came to the attention of the police.

That's not the point, Ben. Firstly, as you have said yourself on so many occasions, the ripper was not to know that. Secondly, there is a big difference between "suspicious" individuals coming to police attention and one whose behaviour warranted putting him under surveillance, or even arrested on suspicion or charged. I see no reason to doubt that Lewis and Lawende and co would have been asked to look at anyone still seriously under suspicion after all other enquiries had been made, in the wake of the Miller's Court murder.

Barnett, to take your example, evidently satisfied the police during their preliminary enquiries that he wasn't lying to them or hiding anything, or he could have found himself facing Lawende.

If, as you claim, Hutch could not have risked relying on Lawende not to recognise him, it's still a mystery to me why you think he did risk it, by volunteering his 'wholesale invention' to the police and the papers. For all he knew, when his house of cards collapsed, the police could have hauled him in, charged him with fabricating his statement and wasting their time and resources on a wild goose chase round the area for an imaginary suspect, and applied the legal 1888 equivalent of the thumbscrews, to 'invite' him to explain what he was really doing hanging around his 'friend' Mary's room shortly before she was murdered:

"Can't expect you to remember where you were on any of the other murder nights, George? Can't expect anyone to confirm you were in the Victoria Home, or just walking about all night? Not our problem, sir. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no alibi is very much your problem from where I'm sitting. Now I'll ask you again and you'll sit there until you rot for all I care, unless you come up with something good: what were you doing that night and what possible reason could you have had for inventing the murdered woman's last client? And if you can't verify your whereabouts on double event night, don't fret. We'll see if we can't conjure up three real gents who can".

But of course, back in Ben's world, the worst he could expect was a 'right royal ticking off' if the police had suspected for one moment that he may have lied his head off to everyone to save his neck.

Yeah, right.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Firstly, as you have said yourself on so many occasions, the ripper was not to know that.

I know I have, Caz, which is why I was at great pains to point out:

Hutchinson, of course, could not have risked relying on that "doubt" to be well-founded

He could not have known the full extent of anyone's sighting, just as he could not have known if a weak description equated to a weak sighting (i.e. an inability to recognise the suspect again).

Secondly, there is a big difference between "suspicious" individuals coming to police attention and one whose behaviour warranted putting him under surveillance, or even arrested on suspicion or charged.

Not really. We have no idea how many of the suspicious invidivuals in question were put under surveillance. We have not the slightest trace of evidence that Hutchinson was ever viewed in a suspicious light (at least beyond that of a bogus witness), let alone being discreetly monitered a la Kosminski.

If it requires a frightening leap of speculation to have Hutchinson placed under surveillance, despite the total absence of evidence for suspicion, then it takes an even greater one to wheel Lawende onto the scene, despite the fact that he was not known to have been used in such identity attempts until years later. And even in that highly unlikely eventuality, Lawende was more than likely to reinforce his doubt about his ability to recognise that suspect again. All of which means that if Hutchinson had really murdered anyone, and the police really took the steps you wanted them to have taken (as above), Hutchinson would still have remained in the clear.

If, as you claim, Hutch could not have risked relying on Lawende not to recognise him, it's still a mystery to me why you think he did risk it

Because if he did risk it, and he was dragged in as a suspect and then identified by Lawende and Lewis, he'd be in more of a spot of bother, and that's just the self-preserving measure. That doesn't rule out the possibility that he also came forward, like other killers, to keep appraised of police progress, create a false lead, and/or get a general buzz out of his perceived superiority over the police.

the police could have hauled him in, charged him with fabricating his statement and wasting their time and resources on a wild goose chase round the area for an imaginary suspect, and applied the legal 1888 equivalent of the thumbscrews, to 'invite' him to explain what he was really doing hanging around his 'friend' Mary's room shortly before she was murdered

You're immediately assuming that the automatic step upwards from a false witness was probable murderer, and that simply wasn't the case. High-profile investigations are utterly bombarded with false witnesses, and the vast majority of them had nothing to do with the crime or crime scene. The next logical step-upwards from exposing him as a lying witness wasn't the "thumbscrews" treatment. It was filing him away with Packer, Violenia and all the other publicity seekers than gummed up the works during the course of the investigation.

And if you can't verify your whereabouts on double event night, don't fret. We'll see if we can't conjure up three real gents who can

...Ah, bummer, they can't identify you because either they didn't see you, didn't notice you, or paid particular attention to your clothes and not your fase. They can't rue you out, naturally, but there's no hope of a positive ID. Oh well, we've no legal option but to release you. Oh, don't tell the press and public about this will you? If you go around telling people what they can expect when they come forward as witnesses, we'll lose all hope of catching you...errm, I mean him!".

But of course, back in Ben's world, the worst he could expect was a 'right royal ticking off' if the police had suspected for one moment that he may have lied his head off to everyone to save his neck

No.

I do wish you'd read more carefully.

I said the best he could expect was a "right royal ticking off" if they thought he was lying about loitering near the crime scene if, in fact, he wasn't (which would have been a great result if he was there and up to no good).

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

if she was not sure or said no, the worst he could expect was a right royal ticking off for pretending to be near the crime scene when he wasn't (which would have been a great result if he was there and up to no good).

Well that's not strictly true.

At the point when Hutchinson walks into this story, the police have absolutely no idea who is killing these women. They have witness descriptions--and the unifying factor of these descriptions are: fair hair, moustache, not tall. The Ripper knows he has been seen by witnesses. Why, then, would he walk into a cop-shop with a story of having seen the last victim in the minutes before she died? Someone might walk past the room where he's dictating his statement and say 'hang about. That chap matches the Lawende description...' It's too much of a risk, and he's a risk-averse kind of a guy.

Caz, I agree with every word you say!

[Ben]

They have witness descriptions--and the unifying factor of these descriptions are: fair hair, moustache, not tall.

No, not really.

They have a mixture of fair moustaches, dark ones, fair hair, dark hair, stout, medium-build, not to mention Liz Long's foreigner of shabby genteel.

Why, then, would he walk into a cop-shop with a story of having seen the last victim in the minutes before she died?

Look, Chava, this debate has really been done to death. There are many Hutchinson discussions that address this particular question. I think he came forward because he realized he'd been seen by an independent witness, and used a potentially perilous situation to both legitimize his presence and deflect suspicion in a false direction. No, someone was not going to walk past and notice that be matched Lawende's description, since Lawende mentioned nothing about the man's facial features other than he was of fair complexion and moustache, which could potentially fit thousands upon thousands of people.

and he's a risk-averse kind of a guy

???

[Malcolm X]

the reason we have this problem BEN is that all of our great postings (weeks of work) were deleted from here...we covered Hutch too long ago, they havent survived the passage of time...... this really p***** me off

you and i know ( maybe Sam too ) how guilty Hutch is, we should've written a book about it.. we certainly had a strong enough arguement.

his description would match hundreds others in the East End...but i'm surprised if Hutch was the Ripper; that he went to the police... but this could be explained by:-

1..if i killed somebody 1/2 mile up the road in my home town and was seen by maybe one or two people, because i visit town every day, i run a huge risk of being identified in the street..Hutch probably thought the same; so it's better to go to the police first...looks far less suspicious.

2...if Hutch was the ripper, why did he go to the police realising that Lawende might be called in by the police to identify him.....simple, maybe the bloke Lawende saw was not the Ripper... i'm sorry, but this could be the truth...........the timing is tight but not impossible..and maybe none of the Stride suspects were Hutch either... this has all been discussed in great detail on Ivor's old forum

3....now if Hutch is this Lawende sighting, he said ``i doubt whether i should know him again``especially a month later...i need say no more!

Hutch has quite a few advantages; if he's the ripper over the police, his appearence matches so many others in London; and nearly all the eyewitnesses are unreliable and thus wouldn't stand a hope in hell in court, no way would Hutch swing on the end of a rope, you'd need concrete evidence and i expect Hutch left nothing lieing around..or in a ``bolt hole`` somewhere in the East End that only he knew about.... his description of what he saw that night is as dodgy as hell........ well what! it's not enough to convict him, only raise suspicion.... in any case, Abberline was looking for a Jew instead.

``catch me if you can``...Abberline cant because he's got no evidence... i'll put a tail on Hutch.... big deal ``i wont kill for another 3 months``

Hutch took a couple of days going to the police...yes he cleaned up his mess/ covered his arse and went to them with a good suspect description, my guess is Hutch actually saw the posh JEW... yes, in Petticoat lane a couple of weeks before; just like he said he did..

Hutch, to me you're the Ripper

[Celesta]

doesn't mean they would not have attempted to get Lewis, Lawende et al to identify Hutch if they had considered him a suspicious enough character to warrant putting him under any kind of surveillance.

They hadn't given up hope by mid-November of ever identifying the ripper, short of catching him in the act 'over the ensuing months', or they wouldn't have bothered appealing for information from the person or persons closest to him.

Love,

Caz
X

It seems someone would've made the stretch and gotten Lawende and Lewis (sounds like a comedy team) to take a look at Hutch. It doesn't seem to have happened. It don't know why, unless they were really taken by his testimony and didn't visualize him as a suspect. Doesn't make sense in our time but perhaps it did in theirs.

Also, I don't think we can totally rule out the anxiety he would've had that Lewis or someone saw him. Anxiety is a powerful motivator, as the author of Crime and Punishment knew very well.

[Malcolm X]

a person dressed as outrageously as this is easy to fixate in your mind during daytime hours, it's stereotypical...it's theatrical; but it's almost impossible to notice all of that (especially the colours he describes), late at night in a cold dimly lit area of Whitechapel.

Hutch desciption is totally fabricated.....

[Chava]

Ben, you're telling me about a discussion that's been 'done to death'?!

This is one of them WTF? moments.

As to Hutchinson being discounted, we don't know why but we do know when. A couple of days after his description was circulated, it was withdrawn. It's not unreasonable to infer that something major happened to cue the cops that he wasn't on the up-and-up. Obviously, since they did withdraw that description, they did some checking into his tale. Otherwise that description would still stand, wouldn't it? And if they are checking that, they are checking him. By his own account he was in the right place at the right time with a story full enough of holes that it's discounted quickly. The dimmest plod in the dumbest cop shop in the LVP would have done a little bit of a rundown knowing that.

In the notes, Abberline says Hutchinson is a credible witness. If something happened to discredit Hutchinson, they aren't going to put it in the notes as well and so make a very senior officer look like a fool and piss him off. They are just going to quietly get rid of the clown and his story and move smartly along. Which means that we will never know why he was discounted and we may never know what they discovered about him. But I'm as certain as certain could be that whatever they got on him takes him out of the frame for the murders.

[Celesta]

a person dressed as outrageously as this is easy to fixate in your mind during daytime hours, it's stereotypical...it's theatrical; but it's almost impossible to notice all of that (especially the colours he describes), late at night in a cold dimly lit area of Whitechapel.

Hutch desciption is totally fabricated.....

It might be a bit more feasible if he'd described the character as "shabby genteel Mr. Astrakhan." Instead we get the vision of a well-dressed man strolling through one of the worst areas in town, something which has also been discussed a bit.

[Malcolm X]

It seems someone would've made the stretch and gotten Lawende and Lewis (sounds like a comedy team) to take a look at Hutch. It doesn't seem to have happened. It don't know why, unless they were really taken by his testimony and didn't visualize him as a suspect. Doesn't make sense in our time but perhaps it did in theirs.

Also, I don't think we can totally rule out the anxiety he would've had that Lewis or someone saw him. Anxiety is a powerful motivator, as the author of Crime and Punishment knew very well.

yes this is very interesting...my guess is that hutch didn't appear as a killer... in the same way as Bundy didn't either, dont forget; they were looking for ``his Jew``.......hell bent on finding him.

``the jews are the men``.... yes very clever, plus look at the locality of the Stride murder and then finally, yet again; we have another description of a Jew ( kelly) ...... very antisemetic

did the ripper have the chalk on him that night (Eddowes)? yes, the writing was originally meant for the gates of Dutfield's...but he was disturbed, because putting those words there, would have been an excellent locality.

he didn't put the words near Eddowes either? no...he was probably disturbed yet again....or the ground was too damp to take chalk.... but he did leave the bloody rag to tell us it was him, plus that locality is on Hutch's route back home!...... my guess is that he heard the policeman coming, or saw the light of his lamp/ somebody else, already spooked from the Stride murder earlier on...he shot off like a rabbit yet again

[Malcolm X]

It might be a bit more feasible if he'd described the character as "shabby genteel Mr. Astrakhan." Instead we get the vision of a well-dressed man strolling through one of the worst areas in town, something which has also been discussed a bit.

yes....all of this has been descibed over and over again