Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[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

[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

[Celesta]

I don't think the police were likely to have asked him the question about a woman entering the court when he first appeared to be interviewed at the station. The priority was to acquire his evidence and circulate the description. The tying up of loose ends would have occured later, when the police were in a position to compare in with other witness evidence etc.

This is probably true, Ben. Whatever transpired, it put the police off of Blotchy. As far as the accomplice offer, it's at least a coincidence. I can't quite work out how that would tie in with any scheme Hutch might have concocted for his own benefit.

[Ben]

Hi Nemo,

There's no evidence that Lewis' loitering man had anything to do with the offer of a pardon for an accomplice. 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.

Best regards,
Ben

[Nemo]

After the inquest statements, surely the man standing opposite the court was a major suspect.

At the time of the inquest I think it was believed possible that two men were acting together in the Ripper crimes - hence the offer of a pardon for the accomplice.

When Hutchinson appeared and stated that he was the man waiting, I would have thought he would have been regarded with suspicion by Abberline and others.

Perhaps that accounts for Hutchinson's "interrogation", duruing which he must have given satisfactory answers, after which he put his abbreviated statement on paper.

[Ben]

Hi Nemo,

To verify Hutchinson was the man seen, surely they would have asked him if he saw a woman entering the court? I would also have expected the police to ask Lewis to identify Hutchinson as the man seen.

All of that may well have happened.

I don't think the police were likely to have asked him the question about a woman entering the court when he first appeared to be interviewed at the station. The priority was to acquire his evidence and circulate the description. The tying up of loose ends would have occured later, when the police were in a position to compare in with other witness evidence etc.

[Nemo]

Hi Ben - Lewis sorry ,yes.

The whole point of Hutchinson appearing after the inquest was supposedly because he was seen - and thought he better go voluntarily to the police to account for his presence etc etc so surely his statement went hand in hand with that of Lewis.

Also the police would surely have desired any corroboration for Lewis's statement.

To verify Hutchinson was the man seen, surely they would have asked him if he saw a woman entering the court? I would also have expected the police to ask Lewis to identify Hutchinson as the man seen.

Strange we seem to have no record in his statement or in other records that the police verified his/her statements in this way.

[Ben]

Hi Nemo,

Do you mean Lewis, rather than Cox?

If it was Hutchinson, it's quite possible that he did mention Lewis, but the detail was not relevent to the possible identification of capture of a murder, and was therefore not included in the statement. We know he mentioned other details (that have survived only through Abberline's accompanying missive) that were also not included in the report, such as knowing Kelly for three years.

Best regards,
Ben

[Celesta]

Nemo,

Unless Cox entered the street too early for Hutch to see her. What I don't understand is, if he was there when he says he was, how did he miss Lewis? She walked right past him. If he was staring so intently up the passage, he surely would have seen her enter the passage into Miller's Ct. She was in a state of agitation because of the weird guy she encountered on the street. I bet she paused right in front of the passage to look back and make sure the weird guy was still standing outside the pub and not about to follow her into the passage. Yet Hutch's statement doesn't mention her. In fact, it doesn't mention a lot of things.

[Nemo]

Another related term to "stocky" would be "broad-shouldered"

I have speculated before that the man seen by Cox was not Hutchinson. In which case he could have been Blotchy or another.

Hutchinson's reason for stating he was there could be to inject himself into the investigation. I would not consider that wise for him, but other men confessed to being the Ripper so it would not be totally unbelievable/impossible.

I would venture though, that if it was the case that he said he was there when he wasn't, it would be because he knew the person who WAS there - possibly Blotchy. He may have been asked by Blotchy or whoever to give a false statement (he wasn't paid £5 for his trouble was he? - lol).

If it WAS Hutchinson who looked up the court as though he was waiting for somebody to come out, I think it strange he either did not notice Cox or at least he did not mention her in his statement.

[Celesta]

Hi Cel
'Sing if you're proud to be stout' springs to mind !!

Hmmmm the fact that nobody saw Mr Blotchy (probably with an empty can- free of ale!) leave isn't surprising really- I'm sure that people were (as the phrase goes) 'Up and down like a pig at a fair' in Miller's Court and someone /anyone slipping out of that door- into the narrow passage- and into history wouldn't be that noticable I reckon!

Suz x

Don't mention the phrase 'Stout-hearted' whatever you do!!!!!xx

Hi Suzi,

Very true. He might easily have slipped through. I keep thinking about how nasty the weather was that night--cold and rainy--and that it might have have kept the traffic down. What a creepy dismal place that court must have been in the best of conditions. Had to downright spooky on a rainy dark night.

Lots of definitions for stout, eh?

Bestest,

Cel

[Suzi]

Just checked 'stout' in Chambers - as you do :-'proud,arrogant,unyielding,stubborn,robust,thick,f at (A callow lie!) ,' and of course...dark porter!!! *Cheers*

Don't know why there's a gap in the fat!

[Suzi]

Hi Cel
'Sing if you're proud to be stout' springs to mind !!

Hmmmm the fact that nobody saw Mr Blotchy (probably with an empty can- free of ale!) leave isn't surprising really- I'm sure that people were (as the phrase goes) 'Up and down like a pig at a fair' in Miller's Court and someone /anyone slipping out of that door- into the narrow passage- and into history wouldn't be that noticable I reckon!

Suz x

Don't mention the phrase 'Stout-hearted' whatever you do!!!!!xx

[Celesta]

Hi Shell,

Maybe so. Another definition of stout might be strong. Somewhere on here there's a discussion of this.

Best,

Cel

Hi Ben,

Thanks for saying this, Ben. I think that stocky doesn't have to imply fat or out of shape. I guess I'm still uncertain of what a late 19th century person would consider a general definition of "stocky." Stocky, to me, could also define a short, square person but not necessarily a chubby one. I had a history teacher who was also a football coach. He was short and square but quite solid. He was very powerful looking. So what did Cox see when she saw stocky?

Hi Celesta,
It could just mean not starving to death and thin ready to disappear into the big sky....Looking strong and healthy enough....Blimey not healthy by our standards today!