The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

My point, is in the official records, being the form of a signed statement, and it is from a person who was interviewed/interrogated , by the investigating police force., we have no official reason to dispute this statement

We have the strong and compelling evidence that Hutchinson's statement was discredited shortly after it first appeared, Richard. We're not going over the same ground where this was established from reliable and irrefutable sources, and that's nothing personal - it's just been done to death. It became pretty "official" that John Humble's hoax tape was from the real Yorkshire Ripper, but that official-ness did not make it true.

Hi Scott,

What if the Victoria Home "common room" didn't have free newspapers?

It did, according to contemporary accounts. It also had chalk for keeping score during the games played there, and for scrawling messages on Jewish-populated enclaves (if any of the patrons were so inclined).

"Obstreperous" means sort of noisily defiant, and "argy-bargy" follows a similar theme, but as for the expression "go glip", I'm afraid I haven't the foggiest!

All the best,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

What if Blotchy was Hutchinson?

Blotchinson. I love it.

[Sam Flynn]

Blotchinson. I love it.

Strikes me as a great name for a brand of fly-spray.

[Wickerman]

We have the strong and compelling evidence that Hutchinson's statement was discredited shortly after it first appeared,...

What was once insisted as "proven", is now reduced to "strong and compelling" - my my, we appear to be making progress.

In fact it was truly neither "strong" nor "compelling", but at least we are heading in the right direction.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
I have no idea when Hutchinson heard of Kelly's murder,but I would imagine well before he arrived at the police station.It had been common knowledge for three days.

Right Harry, "we have no idea", and lets be fair, the murder was common knowledge for half of Friday and all of Saturday.
Sunday morning may have been his first opportunity, or may have been when he eventually plucked up courage, to speak to the law about it.
It really is no use to try manipulate what "we don't know" and use it as negative evidence against him.

Blotchy could equally have left at any time before 2.30. without doing a thing.

Of course, and I'm sure that is nearer the truth.

Even if Blotchy came forward (assuming he was not wanted by the law for something else, or maybe married?), how is he going to prove that Mary was alive and well when he left?

The initial statement by Hutchinson is obviously not going to include sufficient detail, in this case "why he stayed", and Abberline's report has not survived.
What we read from Abberline is a summary of the days events of what Abberline had been involved in.

Now what seems to be factual,is that Kelly and a male entered her room about midnight.That Sarah Lewis entered Millers court about 2.30AM,and at that time there was a male person standing outside Crossinghams.George Hutchinson,by his own admission,claims to have been that person.

Right, so we have nothing 'factual' to establish when Blotchy left, nor if Mary returned to the streets.

[harry]

Jon,
The progress being made,is that you now appear to believe that Hutchinson may have lied.Very few believe that he didn't.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
The progress being made,is that you now appear to believe that Hutchinson may have lied.Very few believe that he didn't.

Among the 'few' we would find Inspector Abberline.
Can you name anyone of importance who believed he did lie?

It is a necessary evil that we are dealing with a population in the East End, some of which believe their version of 'truth' is only what benefits them at 'this' moment in time.

***
A most taxing endeavor in these Hutchinson exchanges is finding a consensus for what he is supposed to have lied about.

[harry]

Jon,what Aberline did is express an opinion,and an opinion does leave room for doubt.What Aberline didn't do is say why he was of such an opinion.Was every one of importance asked?,though who you mean by important is not clear,not that it matters,there is enough information for every one to study and comment on.For myself,I believe Hutchinson lied,and that he lied about Kelly meeting a male person in Commercial Street at about 2AM that Friday morning.What do you believe?

[Ben]

What was once insisted as "proven", is now reduced to "strong and compelling" - my my, we appear to be making progress.

No reduction here, Jon.

I meant “strong and compelling” in the same sense that there is "strong and compelling evidence" that water is wet.

I notice that some of us still stand accused of forming conclusions on the basis of what "we don't know". Trouble is we do know that Hutchinson did not come forward until shortly after the termination of the inquest and public release of the information divulged there, despite the murder itself occurring three days earlier. We do know that his account of his movements tallied almost precisely with those of a man seen by Sarah Lewis, as described at the inquest. The explanation, favoured by many of us, that Hutchinson came forward as soon as he realised he’d been seen is logically a very sound one for the simple reason that it acknowledges these supposed “coincidences” as obvious links.

This is what some people just aren’t getting when they decry “conjecture”. They don’t realise that it requires far more “conjecture” to dismiss an obvious coincidence as random an unrelated than it does to accept it as a link. The idea, for instance, that he came forward when he did because that’s when he “eventually plucked up the courage” is one of the worst examples of this. Isn’t it obvious how terribly convenient it is that this “courage” just haven’t to have been “plucked up” as soon as it was publicly divulged (at the recently closed inquest) that someone had been seen loitering opposite Miller’s Court? Answer: yes, it is terribly “convenient”, and almost certainly no accident.

What’s this I keep hearing about a mysterious lost report from Abberline on Hutchinson that “has not survived” (speaking of convenient explanations!)? We have a report – the one Abberline wrote on the evening on the 12th November. Who cares if it included other details about the “day’s events”? Does that make it any less of a report? I realise you want there to have been another lost-in-the-Blitz “report” that conveniently (again!) accounted for all the things that modern commentators find problematic, but that isn’t realistic. Anything “extra” that pertained to Hutchinson’s credibility – such as “why he stayed” - would have been contained in the report we have on record. Why on earth would Abberline have withheld that detail (assuming Hutchinson even explained himself in that regard) and “saved it for later”?

Can you name anyone of importance who believed he did lie?

Well, taking as evidence the contemporary reports of his discrediting at the hands of the “authorities” in conjunction with subsequent memoirs and interviews, we’ve got Abberline, Anderson and Swanson at least.

***

Wash your mouth out with soap and water, Jon!

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Well, taking as evidence the contemporary reports of his discrediting at the hands of the “authorities”

Point of order, Ben. His story may have been discredited, the man himself (as far as we know) was not. There's a subtle difference: the latter implying that Hutchinson's character was irrevocably sullied; the former, at worst, that his story was proven to be a fabrication. At best, it might mean that his account was doubted for unspecified reasons, and that it was no longer believed.

Be that as it may, nowhere is it said that Hutchinson as a person was "discredited at the hands of the authorities". His story was discredited, which might simply mean that it had been "ruled out".

[Wickerman]

I meant “strong and compelling” in the same sense that there is "strong and compelling evidence" that water is wet.

So long as there is a clear understanding of what 'wet' actually means, water can be proven to be wet, which is more than can be said for t'other subject.

I notice that some of us still stand accused of forming conclusions on the basis of what "we don't know". Trouble is we do know that Hutchinson did not come forward until shortly after the termination of the inquest and public release of the information divulged there, despite the murder itself occurring three days earlier.

Indeed we do, but his coming forward after three days is not the problem.

There can be any number of reasons he resisted coming forward and there is no way Abberline would have been satisfied with Hutchinson if he had refused to tell Abberline what that reason was. Or, if that reason itself was cause for suspicion.

The reason for your continued suspicion of Hutchinson delaying coming forward is because "you" do not know.
So you see, it is what "you do not know" that causes you to pass judgement on him.

We do know that his account of his movements tallied almost precisely with those of a man seen by Sarah Lewis, as described at the inquest.

Correct again, yet it seems that only some of us are aware just how abbreviated the official Inquest record is, that is does not contain all that was said by each witness.
Therefore, to form an opinion on testimony which is for all intents and purposes incomplete, could lead anyone to form erroneous conclusions.

The explanation, favoured by many of us, that Hutchinson came forward as soon as he realised he’d been seen is logically a very sound one for the simple reason that it acknowledges these supposed “coincidences” as obvious links.

Which illustrates my point, regardless how reasonable one might feel about the above conclusion, it is based on guesswork and not on what we know.
You have provided your own solution as to why he was late coming forward, and that solution is the cause for your suspicion.

The idea, for instance, that he came forward when he did because that’s when he “eventually plucked up the courage” is one of the worst examples of this.

You are apparently not aware that quite often witnesses are reluctant to go to the police for a variety of reasons. This is a reality of policework.
Do you need to hear this from an ex-policeman before you believe it?

Isn’t it obvious how terribly convenient it is that this “courage” just haven’t to have been “plucked up” as soon as it was publicly divulged (at the recently closed inquest) that someone had been seen loitering opposite Miller’s Court? Answer: yes, it is terribly “convenient”, and almost certainly no accident.

"Someone"? - which, due to a lack of even the most mundane detail could have been anyone, any age, any height, any 'class'.
No cause for concern there.

What’s this I keep hearing about a mysterious lost report from Abberline on Hutchinson that “has not survived” (speaking of convenient explanations!)? We have a report – the one Abberline wrote on the evening on the 12th November.

That is not a report of the interview with Hutchinson.
It is a summary of Abberline's work-day.

Well, taking as evidence the contemporary reports of his discrediting at the hands of the “authorities” in conjunction with subsequent memoirs and interviews, we’ve got Abberline, Anderson and Swanson at least.

You call that "evidence"?


Could things get any worse....

[Wickerman]

...For myself,I believe Hutchinson lied,and that he lied about Kelly meeting a male person in Commercial Street at about 2AM that Friday morning.What do you believe?

Ok, issue by issue.
- I don't see any cause to question his story about returning from Romford.

- No-one witnessed his meeting with Kelly & the client in Commercial St., but there is nothing suspicious about what he tells us.

- The depth of detail concerning the appearance of Astrachan is, while exceptional, not cause for disbelief.

- Hutchinson's presence in Dorset St. is, in part, corroborated by Sarah Lewis. Even to the extent of her acknowledging the presence of a man & woman together who she saw "pass up the court" while "the loiterer" was out in Dorset St. precisely what Hutchinson claimed.
So the existence of this 'couple' in the same vicinity & at the same time as Hutchinson claims to have been there leaves little room for doubt about that part of his story.

- Why he ventured up the court to stand at her window, why he stayed so long in Dorset St. (leaving about 3:00am?), what he did for the rest of the night? These are all reasonable questions but I don't see any of these claims to be lies.
If these claims are true they need explaining.
But we are in no position to do this.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
I absolutely agree with Jon, there is nothing suspicious about Hutchinson's account, by his own admission he admits to simply strolling around until the lodging house reopened after 6am, I am sure he informed the police of a detailed account of his roaming's , which is not presented to us..
The blinkered suspicious attitude, is uncalled for in my honest opinion...
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

“So long as there is a clear understanding of what 'wet' actually means, water can be proven to be wet, which is more than can be said for t'other subject.”

Nope.

The sources that establish that Hutchinson’s statement was discredited are beyond contradiction to those who have understood and digested them properly. Give me an excuse to go over this again.

“There can be any number of reasons he resisted coming forward”

But how many of those “reasons” convincingly account for the non-coincidence I’ve described above? The suggestions that he suddenly “plucked up the courage” or that he suddenly succumbed to pressure from lodging house chums fail miserably on that score because they do not address the “coincidence” of Hutchinson coming forward so soon after the closure of the inquest and publication of Lewis’ evidence. If you see a puppy sitting beside a pile of poo, it isn’t mere “guesswork” that that the puppy was responsible for that poo pile. It is just a logical, if not inescapable, inference. Your “logic”, on the other hand, would argue that there “can be any number of reasons” for the presence of that pile of poo in such close proximity to a puppy without the puppy itself being responsible for it. And every one of these “reasons” will be stinkier than the poo itself because they fail to eschew “coincidence” as a valid explanation.

It’s no good you saying “we don’t’ know, you don’t know” over and over. We’re still capable of registering obvious links, and it is only when we attempt to dismiss those links as random, unrelated coincidence that we enter into the realms of rampant, unconvincing speculation.

“there is no way Abberline would have been satisfied with Hutchinson if he had refused to tell Abberline what that reason was”

I’ve never suggested that he “refused” to tell Abberline. Hutchinson probably did offer an excuse to Abberline for his delay in coming forward, but it was clearly undermined by the “later investigations” alluded to by the press. As I’ve pointed out a great many times, there wasn’t the means of verifying his claims in the tiny amount of time that elapsed between the end of the interview and the penning of the police report. Whatever excuse Hutchinson gave for his late appearance, Abberline could only have accepted it on faith until such time as that excuse could be tested, and tested it was, a day later, to the detriment of Hutchinson’s credibility.

“You have provided your own solution as to why he was late coming forward, and that solution is the cause for your suspicion.”

Yep, and my own proposed "solution" is logically and inferentially superior to yours because it doesn’t rely on random coincidence as an acceptable explanation.

"Someone"? - which, due to a lack of even the most mundane detail could have been anyone, any age, any height, any 'class'.”

But you do realise that just because person A gives a vague and insubstantial description of person B, that does not mean that person A will not be able to recognise person B again? A weak description does not necessarily equate to a weak sighting. It could mean that the person observed was simply nondescript, or it could mean that the full description had been deliberately withheld at the inquest, as has occurred with Lawende’s evidence at the Eddowes inquest. That’s plenty of “cause for concern” for the real killer if he had been monitoring the reports of earlier inquests. He would be fully aware, in that case, that superficially vague descriptions may not reflect the full extent of what was seen and recorded by the witnesses responsible for them. Post-Eddowes, anyway.

“That is not a report of the interview with Hutchinson.
It is a summary of Abberline's work-day.”

It’s both, actually.

Here was the opportunity for Abberline to write whatever he wanted about Hutchinson in a private internal report, when time was very much of the essence. The idea that he deliberately held back these details “for later” is simply annoying in its silliness.

“Could things get any worse....”

Yeah, we could get people arguing that Joseph Isaacs was Astrakhan man, and that the ripper was a well-dressed upper class gent, and that the police latched on to Bond’s suggested time of death to the exclusion of all other evidence, and that the worst press fiction to emerge in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder must now suddenly be revived as accurate.

But then, thankfully, nobody’s arguing along those lines.

Oh wait.

You are.

Awkward…

You’re even dredging up that discredited silliness about Lewis supposedly seeing a couple “pass up the court”. Serious students of the Kelly case know for a fact that this didn’t happen, and that a single, solitary press source made a booboo, but here you are endorsing it as fact. If you don’t have any problem with the description he provided, or don’t find anything suspicious about his account, that’s fine – you’re entitled to your opinion, even if I think it a naïve, unimaginative, and sloppily uncritical one.

Just let me know if you want to go through this whole business again…

[Ben]

I absolutely agree with Jon, there is nothing suspicious about Hutchinson's account, by his own admission he admits to simply strolling around until the lodging house reopened after 6am

But where's your argument, Richard?

You need to argue your case, rather than appealing to face-value acceptance all the time. Hutchinson told the truth and his detractors are all bastards because...because...why? Because it was "by his own admission"? And because it's "simple", according to you? Great. By my own admission I "simply" farted on the moon yesterday. The fact that such information was "simple" and offered voluntarily ought to make it true, according to you.

I am sure he informed the police of a detailed account of his roaming's

I'm not.

And even if he did, what's the good of a "detailed account of his roaming" if it cannot possibly be verified or contradicted?