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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

And his trudging on a 12+ mile night-time slog from Romford in the drizzle with nowhere to sleep at the end of it, and a memorable encounter with his friend and her remarkable companion, coupled with a 45 minute vigil outside her digs, would be a good "marker" of his accidentally confusing the dates?

[Fisherman]

And his trudging on a 12+ mile night-time slog from Romford in the drizzle with nowhere to sleep at the end of it, and a memorable encounter with his friend and her remarkable companion, coupled with a 45 minute vigil outside her digs, would be a good "marker" of his accidentally confusing the dates?

Quite possibly, yes. Of course he would remember having experienced these things, but the fact of the matter is that regardless of their magnitude, once we live the kind of life that Hutchinson lived, we are prone to getting things wrong.
All his other days would also have had inclusions that were in some way special, and it is the piling on of such things that makes it hard to couple things to the right day.
You have studied psychology, and you should be aware of this, I believe. I had to google it and read up, and the sources all say the same thing - the more transient lives we live and the more our experiences differ from day to day, the more likely we are to mix the days up afterwards.

[Fisherman]

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

I can, so let me do the seeing for you.

[Wickerman]

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 Star.
Monday afternoon/evening.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881112.html

In a paragraph entitled - THE MURDERER DESCRIBED.

You'll notice the reporter left the court during Prater's testimony, likely to meet the next edition deadline.

The public would believe what they read in the papers, they were their only source. The police did not publish anything on how the case was progressing, so Hutchinson may well have read that paragraph, or learned of it second hand.
Knowing it was not true, and discussing what he knew with a fellow lodger, the lodger advised him to go to police.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi RJ
but two other papers i posted also question the reliability of hutchs statement, so its not like this guy is writing total fiction just on his own is it?

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?

was packer charged? was Violenia?


any way how are they going to charge him with making false statements? how are they possibly going to prove it?

[Wickerman]

That´s the whole point. We have no record of him mentioning Lewis. We can always say "maybe he did do that", but until we can verify it, it has very little value.

The problem here lies with criticizing a statement he gave before he was questioned. Of course his initial statement will not provide all the answers. This is partly why criticisms of Hutchinson are invalid, they are based on insufficient evidence.

What remains is that Hutchinson said he saw a PC in the distance, a lodger in Dorset Street AND NO-ONE ELSE.

We're going round in circles here - "no-one" means no other men. Women were not suspects in this case.

This is what he said:
"One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."

It should be clear he is addressing the fact he saw no other men - in his view, no other suspects.
Women were not suspects, only men.

These were different times Christer, women were not the equals of men in the late 19th century. Society was run by men, all important decisions were made by men. This is alien to us today, in the modern world at least.
You have to read 19th century texts in the mind of the 19th century author of that text. You are interpreting it in the modern sense, which is why you are drawing a wrong conclusion.

If the press had speculated that the killer could have been a woman, then you might have a case. If Hutchinson saw a woman (Lewis) follow Kelly & Co. into Millers Court there would be every reason for him to mention that to both the police & the reporter.
However, women were not suspected. Both the police & the reporter were interested in any man that Hutchinson saw that morning.

[Batman]

One would think that by interrogation, this meant more than just taking down a story, which is what a PC did when Hutchinson first reported himself as a witness. Abberline claimed to have actually interrogated Hutchinson.

To go against Abberline's conclusions would be to second-guess Abberline who was there investigating the case. One would almost have to say gullible with the way Hutchinson is portrayed as a fame-seeker by some. How could Abberline not tell the difference between a witness who is genuine and one who is there purely for a spectacle? If he can't then why accept anything else Abberline did for this case? It would seem to doubt Hutchison would be able to relegate Abberline's detective abilities to that of a stooge. Was he a stooge? Just a tool of Hutchinson to get whatever Hutchinson wanted out of it?

I think Abberline may have known more than we have read and that would explain a lot of things.

[c.d.]

"I think Abberline may have known more than we have read and that would explain a lot of things."

Hello Batman,

I think you hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head. That was pretty much why I started this particular thread. I don't think that they felt the need to have Schwartz/Lawende identify Hutchinson because they had already made a determination for whatever reason that Hutchinson was not involved in Mary's murder. And I don't think the reason was because they were inept fools.

c.d.

[Varqm]

Nah.Nonsense.Abberline was in haste because they had no real leads from the previous murders,this was promising.Hutch was not known to Abberline and a stranger/witness who has not identified the body in the mortuary -like Long,Brown,Lawende,is not yet to be believed,only an idiot policeman would, but it was about the lead looked promising.Walk the witness a few hours tonight in his Nov. 12 update/letter meant the interrogation ended hours before midnight.
And what they had records on Hutchinson,like today all records in a few computer clicks, how did they figure him out in so short a time.And what about if the witness mixed-up up his dates/day Abberline also figured that out that evening,12 Nov..What about if he had a history of lying they also figured that out in 12 Nov.? The whole thing is ridiculous to even think they had enough.
No need for elaborate explanations the little fact that Hutch said he saw "no one else" the next day 13 Nov.,is enough for me that he was lying,in fact he deliberately made it clear it was but there were/are those not paying attention.But Star picked it up,Nov 15,and moved on to Cox/Blotchy.
And the biggest stupidity would have been choosing Lawende over Hutchinson if Hutch was truthful (" I doubt I could identify the man" vs 15 min sighting and could identify ),but at some point the police came to their senses,Swanson's mistake on Schwartz and Abberline's mistake on Hutch was superseded, Lawende was chosen.
A glaring misstep was not choosing Cox,Star Nov 15 picked it up.
Anyways last post on this thread, to each his own.

----

Like Maxwell Hutch impressed...

Echo
London, U.K.
13 November 1888

A man, apparently of the labouring class, but of a military appearance, who knew the deceased, last night lodged with the police a long and detailed statement of an incident which attracted his attention on the day in question....the man's story could not be shaken, and so circumstantial and straightforward were his assertions that the police at first believed they had - to again quote the journalist - "at length been placed in possession of facts which would open up a new line of investigation, and probably enable them to track the criminal."
The importance which they then attached to it has since suffered diminution. That will be seen by the result of more recent inquiries.

----

[Batman]

Nah.Nonsense.Abberline was in haste because they had no real leads from the previous murders,this was promising...

This sounds good at first but when you think about it a little more, they had a lead in the form of Mary Ann Cox. So it wasn't like they needed a new witness or were desperate for another at the time. They seem to have quite a few witnesses without Hutchinson, as to what went on at Miller's Court and surrounding it.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: The problem here lies with criticizing a statement he gave before he was questioned. Of course his initial statement will not provide all the answers. This is partly why criticisms of Hutchinson are invalid, they are based on insufficient evidence.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of how he could have said many a thing, as long as we don´t have any record of it, that is where we stand. There is nothing wrong with that approach, and indeed it must be prioritized over suggestions that are based on what we DON´T have on record - at least as long as there is nothing else supporting such a take over accepting what we DO have on record.
There is also the effective denial in the Daily News that Hutchinson saw anybody else than the PC and the lodger, and to me, that seals the deal until evidence surfaces to the contrary.


We're going round in circles here - "no-one" means no other men. Women were not suspects in this case.

This is what he said:
"One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."

It should be clear he is addressing the fact he saw no other men - in his view, no other suspects.
Women were not suspects, only men.

These were different times Christer, women were not the equals of men in the late 19th century. Society was run by men, all important decisions were made by men. This is alien to us today, in the modern world at least.
You have to read 19th century texts in the mind of the 19th century author of that text. You are interpreting it in the modern sense, which is why you are drawing a wrong conclusion.

If the press had speculated that the killer could have been a woman, then you might have a case. If Hutchinson saw a woman (Lewis) follow Kelly & Co. into Millers Court there would be every reason for him to mention that to both the police & the reporter.
However, women were not suspected. Both the police & the reporter were interested in any man that Hutchinson saw that morning.

This all relates to Hutchinsons testimony about his observations oin the murder night. I don´t find it strange at all that he says "a man" instead of "a person of no established gender" - we all do that. And why would he say "I have been looking for the person all day" when it was a man he was looking for? Why would he NOT say "police-man", given that this was the common thing to do? There were no policewomen, and so it may sound superfluous perhaps, but it was nevertheless the common expression, "policeman" or "PC".
At the end of the day, and regardless of how women were looked upon in victorian society, it is abundantly clear that women had been prosecuted and convicted of all sorts of crime back in 1888, and it therefore applies that any person, women and men alike, could have had something to do with any crime. Accordingly, Hutchinson would have been called upon to disclose ALL people he saw on the night in question. The police, in particular, would have been greatly interested in it, since it would not only point to potential criminals, it would also disclose potentially useful witnesses, and - not least - checking points for the testimony given by the ones involved in the drama.
So I´m sorry, Jon, but I don´t invest in your suggestion at all; I just can´t.

[Fisherman]

This sounds good at first but when you think about it a little more, they had a lead in the form of Mary Ann Cox. So it wasn't like they needed a new witness or were desperate for another at the time. They seem to have quite a few witnesses without Hutchinson, as to what went on at Miller's Court and surrounding it.

Then again, no police force was ever in the habit of saying "No, thank you!" when a witness turned up with information that changed the perspective on a crime and offered a potential solution, Batman. At least not as long as the forthcoming information seemed sound and solid. And therein lies the crux! For Hutchinson DID come across as sound and solid, and made a very favourable impression on Abberline. Plus we know that this impression seems never to have been changed, going on how Dew treats him with the utmost respect too, fifty years after the murders!

If his information had been on the money, the hunt for Astrakhan man would have been pursued with gusto and the papers would have cast him as the villain for many a month, writing long articles, garnishing them with suggestive drawings of the man. But this does not happen!

So we are left with two factors:

-A benevolent and honest witness, who it seems nobody would tarnish.

-A story that was apparently wrong in some respect/s.

I really don´t think it is rocket science to piece things together once we know this, and once we have read Dews´ view of it.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I wonder if Dew cut Abberline [and possibly himself], a bit of slack by quoting that he probably got the day wrong.
Hutch was probably totally never discredited [proved to be lying] but after the initial excitement of a very promising lead and possibly parts of his story being true, maybe not being at his lodging house that night. Making him believable at first. Over the coming days, doubts began to creep in, perhaps the none sighting of Lewis for example.
But his story could not be shaken, nor proven to be false. So Dew concluded that he had got the date wrong, less of two evils so to speak and at the same time saving a bit of face, so as not to be seen taken in, and wasting police resources on a false witness who was for all intents and purposes lying.
[Apologies if someone as brought this point up before].

[Fisherman]

If I was to offer up a scenario where Hutchinson was not a benevolent witness, I would actually go for him being in cahoots with Blotchy. It would make for a nice idea for a fiction book. It goes like this:
Hutchinson is a friend, not of Mary´s but of Blotchy´s. Either that or he owes Blotchy for something. And so he agrees to cover up for Blotchy, who is the actual killer.
Blotchy is the man doing the surveillance of Miller´s Court when Lewis arrives; he does fit the description of a sturdy man with a wideawake. He has decided to return to Kellys´ abode and kill her, the initial visit was just to check things out.
He proceeds to kill Mary, but he fears that Lewis will come forward and point him out. Of this he cannot be sure, since Lewis only threw a quick glance his way and he was in the darkness under the doorway arch of Crossinghams. However, to avoid all risks, he and Hutch decides that Hutch will take on the role of the loiterer if push comes to shove, and the two concoct a suspect who (of course) arrives later than Blotchy did and who (of course) is VERY different in apparition. The idea is to erase Blotchy from the suspect board by adding this later visitor.
The decision is taken not to introduce Hutchinson at the inquest, since the couple are not sure that Lewis will turn up. But when she does, the plan is set in motion and Hutchinson seeks out the police with his storyline some time later.

That´s how I would play my cards as a Hutchinsonian.

But then again, I am no Hutchinsonian. And so, if this idea should be presented by somebody else, I would offer two points of criticism:

1. If they were really there on the murder night, the couple would be able to get things right in their story, and so no distrust would be placed in it a few days after it broke.

2. Of course, Hutchinson would be adamant in saying that he saw a woman passing into the court at the precise time that Lewis did so, because that would be the clincher.

And since these parameters are left unfulfilled, I would drop the idea that Hutchinson was in any way linked to the crime as such.

[Fisherman]

I wonder if Dew cut Abberline [and possibly himself], a bit of slack by quoting that he probably got the day wrong.
Hutch was probably totally never discredited [proved to be lying] but after the initial excitement of a very promising lead and possibly parts of his story being true, maybe not being at his lodging house that night. Making him believable at first. Over the coming days, doubts began to creep in, perhaps the none sighting of Lewis for example.
But his story could not be shaken, nor proven to be false. So Dew concluded that he had got the date wrong, less of two evils so to speak and at the same time saving a bit of face, so as not to be seen taken in, and wasting police resources on a false witness who was for all intents and purposes lying.
[Apologies if someone as brought this point up before].

It´s possible - and I would say very probable - that the suggestion of a mistaken day was on the cards back in November of 1888, and that Dew says what he says on account of that. It would seem that it was never a totally uncontroversial suggestion, though, going on how Dew does not state it as a proven point but more like something that had once become the only remaining possibility. It seems, though, that it was a possibility on which not everybody agreed. I suspect that Hutchinson himself was a non-believer in it, as lead on by his son Reg (accepting, as I do, that Topping was our man).

I don´t invest much in the idea that the police were conned and that they then decided to try and sweep that under the carpet. If this was the case, I think that Hutchinson would have gone to jail for it, and that the police would show their muscles by pointing out that no liar will get away with trying to fool them.
And, of course, if there was a cover-up, I don´t think that Dew would give Hutchinson such a glowing mention in his book. He would either have left him out totally or he would have been a lot less recognizing of his good honesty. It would be like whipping your own back otherwise, fifty years on there would have been no further reason to lick Hutchinsons´ behind - the taste would have been bitter enough in 1888, I should say.