Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Nov 15 Star:

Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached.

London Echo 13 November:-
From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

Note how it is the story that is said to have suffered a diminished importance, while nothing is said about the veracity of Hutchinson. We know from Dew that Hutch was a person he found fully reliable, and so the outcome becomes one where we are probably looking at an honest mistake on his behalf.

That is the only solution that covers all angles.

[Abby Normal]

Note how it is the story that is said to have suffered a diminished importance, while nothing is said about the veracity of Hutchinson. We know from Dew that Hutch was a person he found fully reliable, and so the outcome becomes one where we are probably looking at an honest mistake on his behalf.

That is the only solution that covers all angles.

I don't know fish
"discredited" is a pretty harsh word to use for an honest mistake in the first story and in the second theyre questioning why he didn't attest the inquest and come forward sooner-again not really in line with an honest mistake.


however, that being said Dew did say it-its on the record a police official thinks hutch was out on his days so I admit its there. its possible.

[Joshua Rogan]

Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?[/I]

"He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police"

[Abby Normal]

"He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police"

Thanks JR
Is that from the same press article?

I wonder what those "imprudent" reasons could possibly be?

[Sam Flynn]

however, that being said Dew did say it-its on the record a police official thinks hutch was out on his days so I admit its there. its possible.

I've never been a fan of the idea that he got his dates mixed up. Surely he'd remember the night he walked 12+ miles from Romford on a drizzly night, and that this coincided with meeting his good acquaintance Kelly and her remarkable companion on the morning of her death, on which he walked about all night until his lodgings opened. If it were just another boring day, I'd be more inclined to believe in a mix-up, but it had been anything but an ordinary night.

[MrBarnett]

I've never been a fan of the idea that he got his dates mixed up. Surely he'd remember the night he walked 12+ miles from Romford on a drizzly night, and that this coincided with meeting his good acquaintance Kelly and her remarkable companion on the morning of her death, on which he walked about all night until his lodgings opened. If it were just another boring day, I'd be more inclined to believe in a mix-up, but it had been anything but an ordinary night.

And he would probably have been able to pinpoint the day with reference to the Romford livestock market which was held weekly on a Wednesday - assuming his trip to Romford took him to the town centre.

[Michael W Richards]

But on that vein, could it be that Hutch knows the man that was there and either volunteered or was coerced into taking his place?

Depends on how much Hutch feared for himself, if this dude was a shady character. But then if Hutch knew MJK as he claimed he did, would he really let someone literally get away with her murder? Assuming that wideawake man could be the culprit?

If he knew her, why would he wait 4 days to come forward?

[Busy Beaver]

On another thread, I mentioned that because the Press had got to witnesses before the police, JTR was given a life-line. Could the Ripper have been a Journalist? As he's definitely someone who could cause a stir and walk away washing his hands.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

What Wolf V. may not know is that in 1888 the London correspondent for the New York Sun was Arthur Brisbane…

I did know that, actually. Brisbane wrote the Sun’s weekly rundown of news from London.

Brisbane was around 21 years old when he went to London for the Sun, having been hired by legendary editor Charles Dana, who was an excellent judge of talent. Pointing out that Brisbane would much later be called the “father of American yellow journalism” (he did work for Hearst after all) however, is neither here nor there when discussing events of 1888.

AB's account is no more trustworthy than something flowing from the pen of Donald McCormick.

Or Charles A. Dunham?

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, November 13, published the inquest findings from the day before, Nov 12.

Yet At 6.00pm on 12th November 1888, the day before the inquest findings were published, Hutchinson had already gone to Commercial Street Police Station to give his statement.

So how did Hutchinson know about the claims made by Cox?

The Sun (London not New York) published a report on the inquest on the 12th.

Wolf.

[Fisherman]

And he would probably have been able to pinpoint the day with reference to the Romford livestock market which was held weekly on a Wednesday - assuming his trip to Romford took him to the town centre.

Then again, it may not have, right? It´s all good and well for us to say "Nooo, he could not possibly have mixed up the days", but the fact of the matter is that the fewest would be better suited to do so. His line of work and his transient life are excellent markers for such things.

[Fisherman]

I don't know fish
"discredited" is a pretty harsh word to use for an honest mistake in the first story and in the second theyre questioning why he didn't attest the inquest and come forward sooner-again not really in line with an honest mistake.


however, that being said Dew did say it-its on the record a police official thinks hutch was out on his days so I admit its there. its possible.

Don´t forget that we are talking about papers and journalism here, Abby. They WILL choose "discredited" over "ever so slightly less believed" eleven times out of ten. You may take that from me, as one of the merchants of the trade... But I NEVER exaggerate about you-know-who!

The fact that Dew reasoned that a mistaken time must have been the reason for why Hutchinson got things wrong speaks volumes to me. It tells me that there was an initial confusion and that there was an ensuing disagreement about it, and that Dew nevertheless opted for a mistaken day will reasonably have it´s origin in for example how Hutch denied ever having been up against Crossinghams or how he denied that Lewis had passed into the court.

[Fisherman]

I've never been a fan of the idea that he got his dates mixed up. Surely he'd remember the night he walked 12+ miles from Romford on a drizzly night, and that this coincided with meeting his good acquaintance Kelly and her remarkable companion on the morning of her death, on which he walked about all night until his lodgings opened. If it were just another boring day, I'd be more inclined to believe in a mix-up, but it had been anything but an ordinary night.

NOTHING was ordinary to Hutchinson, Gareth - and that´s the whole point. People who do have a life full of ordinary days are much less inclined to mix up the days, actually!

[rjpalmer]

Pointing out that Brisbane would much later be called the “father of American yellow journalism”...is neither here nor there when discussing events of 1888.

O nonsense, Wolf, the author of the source is ALWAYS relevant. It is very much to the point, as it shows the character of Brisbane and puts it in the proper context, which you failed to do.

In reality, Brisbane's tone throughout his columns is mocking and playful...he is basically writing a gossip column for his American readers and sniping at 'the powers that be'...which is certainly highly relevant when deciding whether or not this jocular statement should be regarded as trustworthy inside information.

Had the Metropolitan police actually discoverd that Hutchinson made up the entire story for profit, as Brisbane implies, he would have been prosecuted and Dew would hardly have viewed him so charitably years later.

But perhaps you can produced some evidence that Hutchinson was prosecuted for submitting this false statement to the police? If not, why not? Let me answer. Possibly because Brisbane's was merely indulging in a bit of jocular irony and you've misinterpreted it as a serious statement of fact.

Charging people for making false statements to the police was common in the Victorian era, Wolf. How was Hutchinson so lucky as to escape prosecution and two weeks with hard labor? I can hardly imagine Dolly Williamson would have been amused.

[Sam Flynn]

NOTHING was ordinary to Hutchinson, Gareth - and that´s the whole point. People who do have a life full of ordinary days are much less inclined to mix up the days, actually!

I just can't see that Hutchinson would have mistaken the events of that night, Fish.