PDA

View Full Version : Hutchinsons statement....


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

andy1867
05-03-2017, 11:48 AM
I have been reading the forum, listening to the podcasts, I rarely post as most seems to have been covered.
Some seem to find Hutchinsons statement as rather "too exact" "too precise" and discount it as untrue for those, I suppose, plausible reasons, I mean who takes THAT much notice?
But reading through it tonight, there is one part where Hutchinson states...
and I paraphrase....
"He hid his head ...I stooped down and looked at his face"
Thats surely someone who is paying careful attention isn't it?..
So maybe the rest of his statement may not be that far off the mark

Sam Flynn
05-03-2017, 12:16 PM
Hello Andy
"He hid his head ...I stooped down and looked at his face"
Thats surely someone who is paying careful attention isn't it?
The cynic might say that he threw that in because he was conscious that his statement might be a little too detailed. His thinking might have gone something like this:

"How can I explain how I got such a good look of a stranger I saw in passing in the middle of the night, in the poorly-lit streets of Whitechapel? I know! I'll say I stood by a lamp-post, bent over and stared into the man's face as he passed into its beam"

I've sometimes wondered how likely it would be for someone to do that, never mind the idea of his only getting a "stern look" in return.

Abby Normal
05-03-2017, 12:26 PM
I have been reading the forum, listening to the podcasts, I rarely post as most seems to have been covered.
Some seem to find Hutchinsons statement as rather "too exact" "too precise" and discount it as untrue for those, I suppose, plausible reasons, I mean who takes THAT much notice?
But reading through it tonight, there is one part where Hutchinson states...
and I paraphrase....
"He hid his head ...I stooped down and looked at his face"
Thats surely someone who is paying careful attention isn't it?..
So maybe the rest of his statement may not be that far off the mark

why would he be so concerned about the mans face? he even said he didn't think he was any danger.

I agree with sam, I think he threw that in there to show he was paying very close attention to the man, hence the detailed description.

I think he also wanted to convey that he got a real good look at him.

but why? I think its because he wanted to convey he was a legit witness who saw a really suspicious man with Mary.

c.d.
05-03-2017, 03:34 PM
If Hutch is to be believed it is not unreasonable that staring at the man was an act of intimidation. Make him uncomfortable so that he is only with Mary for a short time as opposed to all night and Hutch gets a place to sleep that night.

c.d.

Abby Normal
05-03-2017, 04:15 PM
If Hutch is to be believed it is not unreasonable that staring at the man was an act of intimidation. Make him uncomfortable so that he is only with Mary for a short time as opposed to all night and Hutch gets a place to sleep that night.

c.d.

No t bad idea. Never thought of that. Maybe some jealousy involved too?

Wickerman
05-03-2017, 04:40 PM
Hutchinson may have been a little ticked off as his potential companion for the night was stolen from his grasp.
The direct glance he gave, right in his face, may have been to confirm who the man was. If you recall he said he had seen the man around on occasion, that he was known in the area.

And, in response to Andy.
Hutchinson did claim to see the same man on Sunday morning at the market. If he had been dressed differently then presumably Hutch would not have recognised him. Therefore, it is quite possible that Astrachan was dressed the same way on Sunday, as he was on Friday morning, which enabled Hutch to recognise him.

Which means Hutch was able to see in daylight, in better detail how this man was dressed.

GUT
05-03-2017, 07:01 PM
If you recall he said he had seen the man around on occasion, that he was known in the area.

And, in response to Andy.
Hutchinson did claim to see the same man on Sunday morning at the market. If he had been dressed differently then presumably Hutch would not have recognised him. Therefore, it is quite possible that Astrachan was dressed the same way on Sunday, as he was on Friday morning, which enabled Hutch to recognise him.


Jon

While it was possible he was dressed the same, if Hutch had seen him around before, he didn't need to be dressed the same for Hutch to recognise him.

The Good Michael
05-03-2017, 09:40 PM
There's a possibility that Hutchinson didn't even know Kelly.

Mike

DJA
05-03-2017, 10:56 PM
If Hutchinson had asked Mary Kelly for accommodation for the remainder of the morning,he might have had a shred of credibility.

John Wheat
05-04-2017, 12:05 AM
I have been reading the forum, listening to the podcasts, I rarely post as most seems to have been covered.
Some seem to find Hutchinsons statement as rather "too exact" "too precise" and discount it as untrue for those, I suppose, plausible reasons, I mean who takes THAT much notice?
But reading through it tonight, there is one part where Hutchinson states...
and I paraphrase....
"He hid his head ...I stooped down and looked at his face"
Thats surely someone who is paying careful attention isn't it?..
So maybe the rest of his statement may not be that far off the mark

I think your right andy. Hutchinson was a witness.

Cheers John

caz
05-04-2017, 02:02 AM
If Hutch is to be believed it is not unreasonable that staring at the man was an act of intimidation. Make him uncomfortable so that he is only with Mary for a short time as opposed to all night and Hutch gets a place to sleep that night.

c.d.

Hi c.d,

It's certainly something Abberline might/should have asked Hutch under interrogation. If it didn't occur to Hutch that the man posed any danger to Kelly, he might still have been miffed that he couldn't spare the sixpence that might have paid for some shut-eye [or a bit of how's yer father], while this flash git evidently had exactly what the lady wanted.

If Hutchinson had asked Mary Kelly for accommodation for the remainder of the morning,he might have had a shred of credibility.

Well again, that might have come out during Abberline's interrogation. If Hutch admitted to hanging around for 45 minutes with that purpose in mind before giving it up as a lost cause, he would arguably have come across as more credible, while the man still doing his thing in that room would be the one the police needed to track down and eliminate. They already had Hutch if they needed to question him again - or at least he gave them the Victoria Home as somewhere he could be found.

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
05-04-2017, 05:28 AM
Hi c.d,

It's certainly something Abberline might/should have asked Hutch under interrogation. If it didn't occur to Hutch that the man posed any danger to Kelly, he might still have been miffed that he couldn't spare the sixpence that might have paid for some shut-eye [or a bit of how's yer father], while this flash git evidently had exactly what the lady wanted.



Well again, that might have come out during Abberline's interrogation. If Hutch admitted to hanging around for 45 minutes with that purpose in mind before giving it up as a lost cause, he would arguably have come across as more credible, while the man still doing his thing in that room would be the one the police needed to track down and eliminate. They already had Hutch if they needed to question him again - or at least he gave them the Victoria Home as somewhere he could be found.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
nothing about hutchs statement jibes.

way too detailed description-at night no less. not only mans description but theyre actions and what they said-like a friggen script.
no explanation why he took such detailed notice.
lame excuse why he waited around for 45 minutes.
lame reason why he waited three days, after the inquest to come forth.
then an explosion of involvement-police, press etc.
significant change in story when he spoke to press.
says he saw man again, but no real attempt to track down, especially if he knew this man may have murdered his friend.
discrepancy in why he couldn't go to victoria house-too late or no money???
only witness who knew victim well.
discounted statement soon after in the papers


All other witness descriptions in the whole case are similar innocuous statements as one would expect, yet hutch is got all this nonsense going on.
something aint right, and it dosnt take a genius (or it shouldn't) to see it.
Hes lying.

John G
05-04-2017, 10:23 AM
This is a bit of al long shot, but does anyone know if John McCarthy owned an astrachan coat? Obviously I'm not trying to imply anything, although interestingly he was 37 in 1888, so about 35 years of age!

Sam Flynn
05-04-2017, 10:48 AM
This is a bit of al long shot, but does anyone know if John McCarthy owned an astrachan coat?
That, I suspect, we'll never know, John. If, by some miracle, an (authentic) inventory of McCarthy's accoutrements ever materialises, I'll certainly keep an eye open for all the other finery and bling that Hutchinson made up.... sorry, "saw" ;)

John G
05-04-2017, 10:53 AM
That, I suspect, we'll never know, John. If, by some miracle, an (authentic) inventory of McCarthy's accoutrements ever materialises, I'll certainly keep an eye open for all the other finery and bling that Hutchinson made up.... sorry, "saw" ;)

I've a strange feeling you're probably right Sam, but it would certainly be a revelation if any of these issues came to light!

GUT
05-04-2017, 01:48 PM
This is a bit of al long shot, but does anyone know if John McCarthy owned an astrachan coat? Obviously I'm not trying to imply anything, although interestingly he was 37 in 1888, so about 35 years of age!

But wouldn't Hutch have known who he was. If he had seen him around a bit.

John G
05-04-2017, 02:07 PM
But wouldn't Hutch have known who he was. If he had seen him around a bit.

Yes, that's a very good point. Of course, Hutchinson's identity is shrouded in mystery so its difficult to determine how long he may have been living in the locality, and therefore how familiar, if familiar at all, the important local characters may have been to him.

Sam Flynn
05-04-2017, 02:16 PM
Of course, Hutchinson's identity is shrouded in mystery...
Look no further, John, for this is he:

18039

GUT
05-04-2017, 02:34 PM
Yes, that's a very good point. Of course, Hutchinson's identity is shrouded in mystery so its difficult to determine how long he may have been living in the locality, and therefore how familiar, if familiar at all, the important local characters may have been to him.

But he reported it was someone he'd seen around, it seems likely he was familiar with MJK probably visited. But not know Mc. I struggle to accept it as a proposition.

Abby Normal
05-04-2017, 03:55 PM
Look no further, John, for this is he:

18039

nope. here he is.

c.d.
05-04-2017, 04:11 PM
"All other witness descriptions in the whole case are similar innocuous statements as one would expect, yet hutch is got all this nonsense going on.
something aint right, and it dosnt take a genius (or it shouldn't) to see it.
Hes lying.

Hello Abby,

Assuming the above is correct that would indeed make him a liar. It does not however make him a murderer. Abberline and the rest of the boys at Scotland Yard might not have been geniuses but I don't think they were fools. Liar or not it would seem that they didn't think him involved in Mary's murder.

c.d.

Abby Normal
05-04-2017, 04:34 PM
"All other witness descriptions in the whole case are similar innocuous statements as one would expect, yet hutch is got all this nonsense going on.
something aint right, and it dosnt take a genius (or it shouldn't) to see it.
Hes lying.

Hello Abby,

Assuming the above is correct that would indeed make him a liar. It does not however make him a murderer. Abberline and the rest of the boys at Scotland Yard might not have been geniuses but I don't think they were fools. Liar or not it would seem that they didn't think him involved in Mary's murder.

c.d.

I agree. He could have just been looking for gain.
Or a murderer. I can't get over the stalking behavior.

All we know is that abberline believed him.....initially. Remember though when hutch told abberline his story about waiting and watching,it was just after the inquest where Sarah Lewis talked about the waiting man. I think this is why abberline believed him at first.

Wickerman
05-04-2017, 05:04 PM
Jon

While it was possible he was dressed the same, if Hutch had seen him around before, he didn't need to be dressed the same for Hutch to recognise him.

No, thats true.
What he is reported to have said was:
" I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat-lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."
So, maybe he only wore some of the same clothing, but not everything.

Ordinary people didn't have a variety of clothing, generally they wore all they owned, so they wore the same thing every day.
In the Doss-house they daren't even undress, if they did someone might pinch their 'stuff' while they were asleep.

In the case of Astrakhan, it appears he embellished his looks, so, similar to Joseph Isaacs, this character may have liked to pretend to be someone he wasn't.

Wickerman
05-04-2017, 05:12 PM
This is a bit of al long shot, but does anyone know if John McCarthy owned an astrachan coat? Obviously I'm not trying to imply anything, although interestingly he was 37 in 1888, so about 35 years of age!

Hutchinson's 'suspect' apparently "looked Jewish".

GUT
05-04-2017, 07:31 PM
No, thats true.
What he is reported to have said was:
" I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat-lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."



I was really referring to Hutch's statement that head seen Ash man around before the night he saw him with MJK

GUT
05-04-2017, 07:34 PM
I had a great Aunt, born about 1902, who was known to many as Few Clothes, because she had only two changes of "Weekday" and one "Sunday Best" for many years, and her family was way better off than most of the doss house dwellers we read about hear.

Varqm
05-05-2017, 01:31 AM
I have been reading the forum, listening to the podcasts, I rarely post as most seems to have been covered.
Some seem to find Hutchinsons statement as rather "too exact" "too precise" and discount it as untrue for those, I suppose, plausible reasons, I mean who takes THAT much notice?
But reading through it tonight, there is one part where Hutchinson states...
and I paraphrase....
"He hid his head ...I stooped down and looked at his face"
Thats surely someone who is paying careful attention isn't it?..
So maybe the rest of his statement may not be that far off the mark

This has been debated before, but if he was so detailed why not mention Sarah Lewis.Hutchinson's and Lewis's timings coincide. He could not have missed her.Just by that he was not an ordinary witness who would just tell things matter-of-factly.
Surely Kelly's murder would have been big news and he would have known about it.If he had known her for 3 years,giving her money here and there,concerned about her that early morning,that her companion was unusually attired and with a parcel in his left-hand,why would he not report to the police immediately.A 3-dollar bill.

FrankO
05-05-2017, 05:25 AM
This has been debated before, but if he was so detailed why not mention Sarah Lewis.
That's easy, Varqm. Or, at least, that's it for me. If his appearance at the police station was prompted by Sarah Lewis's testimony, he wouldn't want to immediately get the police on that track. He would want to come across as an independent and helpful witness. So no mention of Lewis.

All the best,
Frank

Abby Normal
05-05-2017, 08:48 AM
That's easy, Varqm. Or, at least, that's it for me. If his appearance at the police station was prompted by Sarah Lewis's testimony, he wouldn't want to immediately get the police on that track. He would want to come across as an independent and helpful witness. So no mention of Lewis.

All the best,
Frank

Bingo. Very astute FrankO!

Fisherman
05-05-2017, 08:57 AM
That's easy, Varqm. Or, at least, that's it for me. If his appearance at the police station was prompted by Sarah Lewis's testimony, he wouldn't want to immediately get the police on that track. He would want to come across as an independent and helpful witness. So no mention of Lewis.

All the best,
Frank

And in what capacity would he seem not helpful and not independent for mentioning Lewis? Can you explain that to me?
I have always thought that a very weak explanation. If he wanted to put things beyond doubt, then he needed to mention Lewis, and he didn´t. So it´s a dead duck to me.

Sam Flynn
05-05-2017, 09:47 AM
Some of the key ingredients of Hutchinson's story can be found, at least in embryo, in various newspapers published two whole days before Hutchinson gave his statement. It's worth noting in this regard that the Victoria Home, true to its philanthropic ethos, was known to provide its residents with a range of newspapers. These excerpts are taken from the Star, the Times, the Daily News and Morning Advertiser of 10th Nov:

Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy [i.e. Sarah Lewis], came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before. She passed them without taking any notice, and went home to bed.

In connection with Mrs. Kennedy, it may be mentioned that she and her sister, a widow, were, on Wednesday night last, accosted by a man when they were walking down the Bethnal Green road. It was about eight o'clock when this occurred. The man is described by Mrs. Kennedy as having on a pair of dark mixture trousers and a long dark overcoat. He wore a low crowned brown hat and carried a shiny black bag in his hand. Further, it was stated that he was a man of medium stature, with dark moustache, and that he had an extremely awkward gait, which could at once be recognised.

------

Mrs. Paumier said the man had a black moustache, was about five feet six inches high, and wore a black silk hat, a black coat, and speckled trousers. He also carried a black shiny bag, about a foot in depth and a foot and a half in length. Mrs. Paumier stated further that the same man accosted three women [is this a version of the Kennedy/Lewis Wednesday encounter?] whom she knows on Thursday night... One of the three young women she named, Sarah Roney [Lewis?] a girl about 20 years of age, corroborates her statement.

-------

[A] young woman, an associate of the deceased, states that about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, respectably dressed, came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money.

She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache - talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming." Whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go.

------

[A] young woman, an associate of the deceased, states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings

------

I say "in embryo", because the details subtly differ, but please note:

* The sequence of events
* The meeting by a pub and/or the corner of Dorset St
* Kelly's asking a friend for money
* Kelly's admission that she was desperate for money and that she must get some soon
* The subsequent meeting with a man
* The appearance of being drunk (aka "spreeish"?)
* The man's moustache
* His hat
* The 18" inch bag he carried
* His being well-dressed
* His being 5'6" (direct hit there)
* The reference to his peculiar gait (he "walked very sharp", according to Hutch)
* His accompanying Kelly to her lodgings

It strikes me as eminently feasible that Hutchinson took elements from these reports, embellished them into an entirely fictitious story, perhaps hoping to earn a few bob from the press/police.

Abby Normal
05-05-2017, 09:57 AM
Some of the key ingredients of Hutchinson's story can be found, at least in embryo, in various newspapers published two whole days before Hutchinson gave his statement. It's worth noting in this regard that the Victoria Home, true to its philanthropic ethos, was known to provide its residents with a range of newspapers. These excerpts are taken from the Star, the Times, the Daily News and Morning Advertiser of 10th Nov:

Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy [i.e. Sarah Lewis], came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before. She passed them without taking any notice, and went home to bed.

In connection with Mrs. Kennedy, it may be mentioned that she and her sister, a widow, were, on Wednesday night last, accosted by a man when they were walking down the Bethnal Green road. It was about eight o'clock when this occurred. The man is described by Mrs. Kennedy as having on a pair of dark mixture trousers and a long dark overcoat. He wore a low crowned brown hat and carried a shiny black bag in his hand. Further, it was stated that he was a man of medium stature, with dark moustache, and that he had an extremely awkward gait, which could at once be recognised.

------

Mrs. Paumier said the man had a black moustache, was about five feet six inches high, and wore a black silk hat, a black coat, and speckled trousers. He also carried a black shiny bag, about a foot in depth and a foot and a half in length. Mrs. Paumier stated further that the same man accosted three women [is this a version of the Kennedy/Lewis Wednesday encounter?] whom she knows on Thursday night... One of the three young women she named, Sarah Roney [Lewis?] a girl about 20 years of age, corroborates her statement.

-------

[A] young woman, an associate of the deceased, states that about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, respectably dressed, came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money.

She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache - talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming." Whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go.

------

[A] young woman, an associate of the deceased, states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings

------

I say "in embryo", because the details subtly differ, but please note:

* The sequence of events
* The meeting by a pub and/or the corner of Dorset St
* Kelly's asking a friend for money
* Kelly's admission that she was desperate for money and that she must get some soon
* The subsequent meeting with a man
* The appearance of being drunk (aka "spreeish"?)
* The man's moustache
* His hat
* The 18" inch bag he carried
* His being well-dressed
* His being 5'6" (direct hit there)
* The reference to his peculiar gait (he "walked very sharp", according to Hutch)
* His accompanying Kelly to her lodgings

It strikes me as eminently feasible that Hutchinson took elements from these reports, embellished them into an entirely fictitious story, perhaps hoping to earn a few bob from the press/police.

HI Sam
awesome-thanks for posting. Yes I remember this was discussed at length somewhile back. It seems hutch was patching his story together in the days before he came forward.

Sam Flynn
05-05-2017, 10:02 AM
awesome-thanks for posting. Yes I remember this was discussed at length somewhile back. It seems hutch was patching his story together in the days before he came forward.Thanks, Abby. There are arguably elements of news reports from previous cases in Hutchinson's accounts (police and press statements), but I thought I'd better stick to the Kelly murder.

If my suspicions are right, Hutch didn't half like to read his newspapers, and kudos to the Victoria Home for laying on such a good supply for its customers.

John G
05-05-2017, 10:38 AM
Some of the key ingredients of Hutchinson's story can be found, at least in embryo, in various newspapers published two whole days before Hutchinson gave his statement. It's worth noting in this regard that the Victoria Home, true to its philanthropic ethos, was known to provide its residents with a range of newspapers. These excerpts are taken from the Star, the Times, the Daily News and Morning Advertiser of 10th Nov:

Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy [i.e. Sarah Lewis], came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before. She passed them without taking any notice, and went home to bed.

In connection with Mrs. Kennedy, it may be mentioned that she and her sister, a widow, were, on Wednesday night last, accosted by a man when they were walking down the Bethnal Green road. It was about eight o'clock when this occurred. The man is described by Mrs. Kennedy as having on a pair of dark mixture trousers and a long dark overcoat. He wore a low crowned brown hat and carried a shiny black bag in his hand. Further, it was stated that he was a man of medium stature, with dark moustache, and that he had an extremely awkward gait, which could at once be recognised.

------

Mrs. Paumier said the man had a black moustache, was about five feet six inches high, and wore a black silk hat, a black coat, and speckled trousers. He also carried a black shiny bag, about a foot in depth and a foot and a half in length. Mrs. Paumier stated further that the same man accosted three women [is this a version of the Kennedy/Lewis Wednesday encounter?] whom she knows on Thursday night... One of the three young women she named, Sarah Roney [Lewis?] a girl about 20 years of age, corroborates her statement.

-------

[A] young woman, an associate of the deceased, states that about half-past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, respectably dressed, came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money.

She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache - talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming." Whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go.

------

[A] young woman, an associate of the deceased, states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings

------

I say "in embryo", because the details subtly differ, but please note:

* The sequence of events
* The meeting by a pub and/or the corner of Dorset St
* Kelly's asking a friend for money
* Kelly's admission that she was desperate for money and that she must get some soon
* The subsequent meeting with a man
* The appearance of being drunk (aka "spreeish"?)
* The man's moustache
* His hat
* The 18" inch bag he carried
* His being well-dressed
* His being 5'6" (direct hit there)
* The reference to his peculiar gait (he "walked very sharp", according to Hutch)
* His accompanying Kelly to her lodgings

It strikes me as eminently feasible that Hutchinson took elements from these reports, embellished them into an entirely fictitious story, perhaps hoping to earn a few bob from the press/police.

Hi Sam,

Clearly a very comprehensive analysis and you may well be right. However, wasn't Hutchinson unemployed? That seems significant to me because I would have thought someone in such straitened circumstances would be highly unlikely to purchase newspapers as that would clearly represent an extravagance.

On that basis, how likely is it that he would even be aware of the reports you refer to, let alone have acquired detailed knowledge of them?

John G
05-05-2017, 12:11 PM
Hutchinson's 'suspect' apparently "looked Jewish".

The word "stereotyping" comes to mind.

Sam Flynn
05-05-2017, 12:21 PM
Clearly a very comprehensive analysis and you may well be right. However, wasn't Hutchinson unemployed? That seems significant to me because I would have thought someone in such straitened circumstances would be highly unlikely to purchase newspapers as that would clearly represent an extravagance.

Hello John. The Victoria Home supplied a range of newspapers to its residents without charge. In this and other aspects, it was more progressive than the average doss-house.

Incidentally, Hutch's unemployed status could have provided the incentive to earn a few bob from a made-up story - assuming it was made up, of course.

John G
05-05-2017, 12:46 PM
Hello John. The Victoria Home supplied a range of newspapers to its residents without charge. In this and other aspects, it was more progressive than the average doss-house.

Incidentally, Hutch's unemployed status could have provided the incentive to earn a few bob from a made-up story - assuming it was made up, of course.

Hello Sam,

Thanks. That's interesting and is something I was obviously unaware of. Of course, it would also assume that Hutchinson was literate!

Sam Flynn
05-05-2017, 12:55 PM
Thanks. That's interesting and is something I was obviously unaware of. Of course, it would also assume that Hutchinson was literate!
Literacy had been improving among the working-class for some time in the Late Victorian Period and, as a young man in his 20s (as I believe he was), he'd have had a better education than those of his parents' generation.

At least he seems to have had pretty decent handwriting, if his signatures are anything to go by - which is a good sign :)

John G
05-05-2017, 01:32 PM
Literacy had been improving among the working-class for some time in the Late Victorian Period and, as a young man in his 20s (as I believe he was), he'd have had a better education than those of his parents' generation.

At least he seems to have had pretty decent handwriting, if his signatures are anything to go by - which is a good sign :)

And of course his suspect description was very detailed-but not necessarily accurate!- which might also suggest a reasonable level of education.

Sam Flynn
05-05-2017, 01:49 PM
And of course his suspect description was very detailed-but not necessarily accurate!- which might also suggest a reasonable level of education.
That's a very interesting point, John. Perhaps we should look for elements of Mr Astrakhan in the works of Dickens and Shakespeare ;)

Abby Normal
05-05-2017, 01:57 PM
Hi Sam,

Clearly a very comprehensive analysis and you may well be right. However, wasn't Hutchinson unemployed? That seems significant to me because I would have thought someone in such straitened circumstances would be highly unlikely to purchase newspapers as that would clearly represent an extravagance.

On that basis, how likely is it that he would even be aware of the reports you refer to, let alone have acquired detailed knowledge of them?

Hi John
As Sam pointed out there are also press accounts from previous murders that it seems Hutch cribbed from, sometimes verbatim.

jerryd
05-05-2017, 03:57 PM
I really don't have a personal opinion on whether Hutchinson was telling the truth or not. I will say this, though. He saw the man for several minutes even before they reached Miller's Court. Hutch was heading north on Commercial Street when he passed MJK heading south toward Thrawl Street. After she asked him for money she continued toward Thrawl Street. Hutch then went up and "stood against the lamp of the Queens Head public house and watched him". The man must have been approaching from behind Hutch when he encountered MJK because Hutch states "...a man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly . This was after Hutch left her and continued north on Commercial Street. So if she was heading south and the man was coming from the opposite direction, wouldn't that mean the man was coming from where Hutch just came from, toward Whitechapel Road? Could Hutch have noticed the man trailing him and had a looksey then, too?

Mary Kelly must have done an about face with the man and headed back to her lodging at Miller's Court. As they approached Dorset Street Hutch was glaring from the Queens Head when he stooped to see the man's face and THEN he followed them down Dorset Street. He actually had a lot of time to look at this man, in my opinion.

Wickerman
05-05-2017, 04:14 PM
It strikes me as eminently feasible that Hutchinson took elements from these reports, embellished them into an entirely fictitious story, perhaps hoping to earn a few bob from the press/police.

Pick any six articles in the press today, learn them off by heart and then restate everything to two different people, on two separate days.
See how many you can recall correctly, and see how many faults you make between the two re-tellings of your story.

Then ask yourself, to what end, why would I do that?
Then tell us why Hutchinson would go to such trouble.

Wickerman
05-05-2017, 04:22 PM
Thanks, Abby. There are arguably elements of news reports from previous cases in Hutchinson's accounts (police and press statements), but I thought I'd better stick to the Kelly murder.

If my suspicions are right, Hutch didn't half like to read his newspapers, and kudos to the Victoria Home for laying on such a good supply for its customers.

Except that Sarah Lewis confirmed the existence of another couple in the street at the same time as she saw her 'lurker'. The woman being hatless, and the worse for drink. The couple went up the court together, while the lurker stood watching.

Hutchinson's basic story is verified.

Sam Flynn
05-06-2017, 01:15 AM
Hutchinson's basic story is verified.Alternatively, the basic recipe for his story appeared in the papers two (and a half) days before he gave his statement.

Sam Flynn
05-06-2017, 01:25 AM
Pick any six articles in the press today, learn them off by heart and then restate everything to two different people, on two separate days. See how many you can recall correctly, and see how many faults you make between the two re-tellings of your story.But Hutchinson didn't recall, or relate, them correctly, and different details appear in his police statement than in his subsequent accounts in the press.Then ask yourself, to what end, why would I do that?
Money? Fifteen minutes of fame in an otherwise dreary life? Both?

What was Matthew Packer's motivation, I wonder? Strange how the majority of us can see Packer's testimony as unreliable, but are happy to take Hutchinson's account(s) as genuine. If anything, Hutchinson's tale is rather more sensational than Packer's, so why are we inclined to give it more credit? Is it because it bore Abberline's seal of approval - initially, at least? There is, after all, some evidence that Hutchinson's testimony was "discredited" (i.e. "disbelieved") within a short space of time.

Sam Flynn
05-06-2017, 01:29 AM
Could Hutch have noticed the man trailing him and had a looksey then, too?I'm sure he'd have mentioned this if he had.

Varqm
05-06-2017, 02:40 AM
And in what capacity would he seem not helpful and not independent for mentioning Lewis? Can you explain that to me?
I have always thought that a very weak explanation. If he wanted to put things beyond doubt, then he needed to mention Lewis, and he didn´t. So it´s a dead duck to me.

Exactly.A straight and simple testimony helps the most.

Varqm
05-06-2017, 02:58 AM
But Hutchinson didn't recall, or relate, them correctly, and different details appear in his police statement than in his subsequent accounts in the press.
Money? Fifteen minutes of fame in an otherwise dreary life? Both?

What was Matthew Packer's motivation, I wonder? Strange how the majority of us can see Packer's testimony as unreliable, but are happy to take Hutchinson's account(s) as genuine. If anything, Hutchinson's tale is rather more sensational than Packer's, so why are we inclined to give it more credit? Is it because it bore Abberline's seal of approval - initially, at least? There is, after all, some evidence that Hutchinson's testimony was "discredited" (i.e. "disbelieved") within a short space of time.


Abberline could not have disproved Hutchinson's statement in an (initial) interrogation .It would have to come with a subsequent investigation to check him/his statement out.Something must have been found out.Or they came to their senses,that Hutch's statement was odd.

Wickerman
05-06-2017, 04:03 AM
But Hutchinson didn't recall, or relate, them correctly, and different details appear in his police statement than in his subsequent accounts in the press.
Money? Fifteen minutes of fame in an otherwise dreary life? Both?

Sugden went over this comparison years ago Gareth, in fact I posted a line-by-line comparison on Casebook just to demonstrate the fact for those who had not read Sugden.


What was Matthew Packer's motivation, I wonder? Strange how the majority of us can see Packer's testimony as unreliable, but are happy to take Hutchinson's account(s) as genuine.

Packer is deemed "unreliable" because he changed his story, he gave two stories. Not because anyone questioned his story.
Hutchinson never changed his story.


There is, after all, some evidence that Hutchinson's testimony was "discredited" (i.e. "disbelieved") within a short space of time.

Ah, the notorious "discredited" resurfaces.
Sorry Gareth, but the case needs a more reliable source than the Star to take such a claim seriously. The police never made any such claim, and that is what matters, not what the press thinks.

It is clear from existing evidence that Dr. Bond offered a theory which contested Hutchinson's timeline, and as the police are more inclined to give credence to professional opinion, we have the most likely reason why they did not accept Hutchinson's 'suspect' as the single police suspect.
Hence the false press claim that Hutchinson must have been discredited, which the Star themselves knew to be wrong only days after they printed it.

Wickerman
05-06-2017, 04:18 AM
Abberline could not have disproved Hutchinson's statement in an (initial) interrogation .It would have to come with a subsequent investigation to check him/his statement out.Something must have been found out.Or they came to their senses,that Hutch's statement was odd.

The police were still interested in the Astrakan character in December, so this fact alone shows the police had not dismissed Hutchinson's story.

Abby Normal
05-06-2017, 04:24 AM
Alternatively, the basic recipe for his story appeared in the papers two (and a half) days before he gave his statement.

Give it up Sam
Wicky is hopelessly deluded when it comes to all things hutch.

Abby Normal
05-06-2017, 04:25 AM
I really don't have a personal opinion on whether Hutchinson was telling the truth or not. I will say this, though. He saw the man for several minutes even before they reached Miller's Court. Hutch was heading north on Commercial Street when he passed MJK heading south toward Thrawl Street. After she asked him for money she continued toward Thrawl Street. Hutch then went up and "stood against the lamp of the Queens Head public house and watched him". The man must have been approaching from behind Hutch when he encountered MJK because Hutch states "...a man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly . This was after Hutch left her and continued north on Commercial Street. So if she was heading south and the man was coming from the opposite direction, wouldn't that mean the man was coming from where Hutch just came from, toward Whitechapel Road? Could Hutch have noticed the man trailing him and had a looksey then, too?

Mary Kelly must have done an about face with the man and headed back to her lodging at Miller's Court. As they approached Dorset Street Hutch was glaring from the Queens Head when he stooped to see the man's face and THEN he followed them down Dorset Street. He actually had a lot of time to look at this man, in my opinion.

Had a lot of time to make him up too.

Sam Flynn
05-06-2017, 04:32 AM
The police were still interested in the Astrakan character in December, so this fact alone shows the police had not dismissed Hutchinson's story.
As I said a few years ago:

What is remarkable is that the papers didn't make more of Hutchinson's story; they were, after all, jumping on all kinds of stories in their efforts to sell more copy. Yet, despite its evident "milking-potential", coverage of Hutchinson's story seems to have evaporated almost as soon as it appeared. Why should this have been the case?

Wickerman
05-06-2017, 05:56 AM
As I said a few years ago:

What is remarkable is that the papers didn't make more of Hutchinson's story; they were, after all, jumping on all kinds of stories in their efforts to sell more copy. Yet, despite its evident "milking-potential", coverage of Hutchinson's story seems to have evaporated almost as soon as it appeared. Why should this have been the case?

Based on what though Gareth?
How much "hay" did the press make on the claims of Lawende, Schwartz or Cadoche?
I think your are inventing a reason that is not justified by other examples.

By Nov. 19th the police were still interested in both Blotchy and Astrakan, as suspects in the case. As the Echo reported:
"The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue."

If there are no further clues the police have nothing to go on, and the press will drop the story and move on to more timely events.

So there is nothing suspicious about the fact the press made no more references to Hutchinson. Nothing more was reported until the arrest of the Astrakan adorned Jew, Joseph Isaacs on Dec. 6th, where the press wrote that Abberline thought, "we have got the right man at last".

Had Hutchinson already been "discredited" in November, then Abberline would have had no interest in the suspect.

Sam Flynn
05-06-2017, 06:08 AM
Based on what though Gareth?The sheer detail of his description, which was unquestionably without parallel in the entire case.
Had Hutchinson already been "discredited" in November, then Abberline would have had no interest in the suspect.
Two words: George. Oldfield.

c.d.
05-06-2017, 06:51 AM
I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this thread. Even if we assume that Hutchinson lied what conclusion can we reach beyond that?

c.d.

Sam Flynn
05-06-2017, 08:01 AM
I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this thread. Even if we assume that Hutchinson lied what conclusion can we reach beyond that?
I think Hutchinson can teach us some important lessons: For one thing, even the best detectives working on the Ripper case could be taken in by false testimony; for another, Kelly's murderer was unlikely to have resembled the ostentatiously-dressed person whom Hutchinson described.

Assuming he made it up, of course. I may be wrong in that, but I think there are a number of indicators to the contrary.

FrankO
05-06-2017, 09:46 AM
And in what capacity would he seem not helpful and not independent for mentioning Lewis? Can you explain that to me?
I have always thought that a very weak explanation. If he wanted to put things beyond doubt, then he needed to mention Lewis, and he didn´t. So it´s a dead duck to me.If he was in fact prompted by Lewis’s testimony and had been there for shady reasons (not necessarily being a murderer), he would not want the police to think he only came forward because of Lewis’s testimony. If he would have mentioned Lewis, the chance would have been bigger that they would think that than if he didn’t. Besides the fact that Lewis wasn’t important to his overall story, initially not mentioning Lewis wouldn’t mean that he couldn’t later admit to seeing this woman entering the court.

I can’t explain it any better Fish If you still don’t understand it, then that’s your prerogative.

Abby Normal
05-06-2017, 11:17 AM
I think Hutchinson can teach us some important lessons: For one thing, even the best detectives working on the Ripper case could be taken in by false testimony; for another, Kelly's murderer was unlikely to have resembled the ostentatiously-dressed person whom Hutchinson described.

Assuming he made it up, of course. I may be wrong in that, but I think there are a number of indicators to the contrary.

Agree Sam. I think abberline might have initially believed hutch, because right after Sarah Lewis gave her testimony at the inquest about watching man, in walks hutch and tells abberline the same.

Varqm
05-06-2017, 11:51 AM
If he was in fact prompted by Lewis’s testimony and had been there for shady reasons (not necessarily being a murderer), he would not want the police to think he only came forward because of Lewis’s testimony. If he would have mentioned Lewis, the chance would have been bigger that they would think that than if he didn’t. Besides the fact that Lewis wasn’t important to his overall story, initially not mentioning Lewis wouldn’t mean that he couldn’t later admit to seeing this woman entering the court.

I can’t explain it any better Fish If you still don’t understand it, then that’s your prerogative.

If he was there, a true witness, there was no point in beating around the bush.

Varqm
05-06-2017, 12:07 PM
The police were still interested in the Astrakan character in December, so this fact alone shows the police had not dismissed Hutchinson's story.

Tell me a memoir of a police official where Hutchinson's testimony was central or important or related to their opinion of who the ripper was or could have been or what he looked liked.
As examples Kosminski,Druitt, Tumblety,Klosowski? Where was Hutch's testimony in suspecting this people from a memoir of a police official.

Wickerman
05-06-2017, 12:08 PM
Some of the key ingredients of Hutchinson's story can be found, at least in embryo, in various newspapers published two whole days before Hutchinson gave his statement.

Back to this earlier post.
I just thought it might be relevant to point out that the police did keep track on what the press reported about the crimes. In fact we have cases where the police obtained witnesses directly from what was reported in the press.
There were more journalists on the streets seeking out witnesses than detectives.

If we can select pieces of detail offered by witnesses to the press, then so could the police at the time. This approach basically suggests the police were dumb.

Wickerman
05-06-2017, 12:37 PM
Tell me a memoir of a police official where Hutchinson's testimony was central or important or related to their opinion of who the ripper was or could have been or what he looked liked.
As examples Kosminski,Druitt, Tumblety,Klosowski? Where was Hutch's testimony in suspecting this people from a memoir of a police official.

Memoirs say more about personal preferences (private opinion), than facts about who the killer was. If memoirs were reliable they would all indicate the same suspect.

Abberline believed Isaacs was Astrachan when he was arrested on Dec. 6th.
For the next week the movements of Isaacs were investigated. After which it was determined Isaacs had been in custody at the time of the Kelly murder. So Abberline's suspicions about Isaacs being Astrachan came to an end, and nothing further is recorded about the Hutchinson suspect.

Don't waste your time with memoirs.

Sam Flynn
05-06-2017, 12:44 PM
If we can select pieces of detail offered by witnesses to the press, then so could the police at the time.Perhaps they did, Jon. Might explain why we don't hear much about star witness George Hutchinson after his brief appearance in the spotlight.This approach basically suggests the police were dumb.I'm a policeman's son, and I'd be the last to suggest that they were stupid. However, I'd also be the last to suggest that they were infallible.

Sam Flynn
05-06-2017, 12:46 PM
Memoirs say more about personal preferences (private opinion), than facts about who the killer was. If memoirs were reliable they would all indicate the same suspect.
Good observation, and spot on.

Wickerman
05-06-2017, 01:02 PM
I think Hutchinson can teach us some important lessons: For one thing, even the best detectives working on the Ripper case could be taken in by false testimony; for another, Kelly's murderer was unlikely to have resembled the ostentatiously-dressed person whom Hutchinson described.

Assuming he made it up, of course. I may be wrong in that, but I think there are a number of indicators to the contrary.

:) if your assumption about what we can learn from Hutchinson is itself predicated on an assumption, then we learn nothing.

There is one reason why a liar would provide a very detailed description. He intends there to be no doubt about who he is identifying.
A reasonable question might be, did Hutchinson actually know the man he described?

Wickerman
05-06-2017, 01:22 PM
Agree Sam. I think abberline might have initially believed hutch, because right after Sarah Lewis gave her testimony at the inquest about watching man, in walks hutch and tells abberline the same.

Hi Abby.
But that make-shift court room was small, very few members of the public were able to get in, and Abberline with other police officials were present.
Abberline, or another official, could easily have seen Hutchinson in the court room listening to the evidence.
It doesn't make for a practical scenario in my opinion. Abberline was renown for his work with confidence tricksters and the criminal element out to get whatever they can, so he would have been looking to trip Hutchinson up somehow. Apparently he couldn't.
It's only natural for an investigator to treat a statement with reservation when it is given after the evidence of the case is made public.

Abberline is more likely to believe a later statement if it includes details not yet made public. Hutchinson's interrogation record has not survived, so we do not know what he told Abberline in detail.

Sam Flynn
05-06-2017, 01:42 PM
:) if your assumption about what we can learn from Hutchinson is itself predicated on an assumption, then we learn nothing.My hypothesis (not an assumption) is drawn from the newspaper reports that appeared before Hutchinson came forward. My only assumption is that he read, or was at least aware of, these reports.

Sam Flynn
05-06-2017, 01:52 PM
Abberline was renown for his work with confidence tricksters and the criminal element out to get whatever they can, so he would have been looking to trip Hutchinson up somehow.
Would he, necessarily? Abberline might have been interested in getting more information about what appeared to be a promising lead, but that's not to say that he subjected Hutchinson to a gruelling cross-examination. The guy was a witness, after all, and had submitted his testimony voluntarily.

John G
05-06-2017, 02:17 PM
Hi Abby.
But that make-shift court room was small, very few members of the public were able to get in, and Abberline with other police officials were present.
Abberline, or another official, could easily have seen Hutchinson in the court room listening to the evidence.
It doesn't make for a practical scenario in my opinion. Abberline was renown for his work with confidence tricksters and the criminal element out to get whatever they can, so he would have been looking to trip Hutchinson up somehow. Apparently he couldn't.
It's only natural for an investigator to treat a statement with reservation when it is given after the evidence of the case is made public.

Abberline is more likely to believe a later statement if it includes details not yet made public. Hutchinson's interrogation record has not survived, so we do not know what he told Abberline in detail.

Hi Jon,

Some very good points. However, how likely is it that, following the inquest, Hutchinson simply picked up on local gossip based upon information provided by those that were present?

Varqm
05-06-2017, 02:36 PM
Memoirs say more about personal preferences (private opinion), than facts about who the killer was. If memoirs were reliable they would all indicate the same suspect.

Abberline believed Isaacs was Astrachan when he was arrested on Dec. 6th.
For the next week the movements of Isaacs were investigated. After which it was determined Isaacs had been in custody at the time of the Kelly murder. So Abberline's suspicions about Isaacs being Astrachan came to an end, and nothing further is recorded about the Hutchinson suspect.

Don't waste your time with memoirs.

Of course it's important.All the facts come in later on,months,years.Investigations does not necessarily end in months.Long, Lawende,Schwartz (although to me more likely not a ripper victim) witnessed the victim and likely the killer in passing.Hutchinson followed the couple, "stooped down and looked him in the face",watch them for 3 minutes,surely he would have been a major witness.But Hutchinson's testimony was not central or important or related to their opinion of who the ripper was or could have been or what he looked liked later on,on any memoirs or article write-up,memoranda,,even the Seaside identification.

But I'll leave you to your stupor.

Wickerman
05-06-2017, 02:58 PM
Would he, necessarily? Abberline might have been interested in getting more information about what appeared to be a promising lead, but that's not to say that he subjected Hutchinson to a gruelling cross-examination. The guy was a witness, after all, and had submitted his testimony voluntarily.

I was trying to suggest there are two ways to approach a witness statement.
When a witness offers a statement before official evidence is given publicly, then there is less cause for suspicion.
This was not the case with Hutchinson, so the interrogating officer needs to be sure this Johnny-come-lately witness is not just trying to manipulate publicly released evidence for his own ends.
There's an extra level of caution required.

Wickerman
05-06-2017, 03:13 PM
Hi Jon,

Some very good points. However, how likely is it that, following the inquest, Hutchinson simply picked up on local gossip based upon information provided by those that were present?

Hi John.
I would say, too many assumptions there.
Where was this gossip, when, between whom, and what was the gossip about?
Was there even any time for him to listen to the right witness, relating the right event?
How would he know who to listen to?

It's one thing to raise a legitimate objection, but quite another to create a series of assumptions in order to raise an objection.

In the main, the criticisms against Hutchinson are very labor intensive.
Some 20+? years ago someone cast Hutchinson with suspicion, as is often the case, just to offer someone different.
Since then, many others have jumped on the same bandwagon with various accusations, not one of the accusations have ever been established in fact.

Hutchinson never was a suspect, that is purely a modern invention.

John Wheat
05-07-2017, 03:24 AM
Hi John.
I would say, too many assumptions there.
Where was this gossip, when, between whom, and what was the gossip about?
Was there even any time for him to listen to the right witness, relating the right event?
How would he know who to listen to?

It's one thing to raise a legitimate objection, but quite another to create a series of assumptions in order to raise an objection.

In the main, the criticisms against Hutchinson are very labor intensive.
Some 20+? years ago someone cast Hutchinson with suspicion, as is often the case, just to offer someone different.
Since then, many others have jumped on the same bandwagon with various accusations, not one of the accusations have ever been established in fact.

Hutchinson never was a suspect, that is purely a modern invention.

The same could be said for Lechmere. Both are witnesses and not suspects.

Sam Flynn
05-07-2017, 03:41 AM
This was not the case with Hutchinson, so the interrogating officer needs to be sure this Johnny-come-lately witness is not just trying to manipulate publicly released evidence for his own ends.
Whether Abberline took this approach, or didn't, requires assumptions to be made on both sides of the argument. Personally, I don't assume that Abberline definitely did. Even if he had, it's still quite possible that Hutchinson put one over on him. It wouldn't have been the first or the last time that a tall tale, convincingly told, deceived an experienced detective.

Wickerman
05-07-2017, 06:09 AM
The same could be said for Lechmere. Both are witnesses and not suspects.

I have said the same. With all due respect to Christer, I do not accept the Lechmere argument, so I never get involved.
Christer is no fool, he's very smart, but we must agree to disagree on Lechmere.

Wickerman
05-07-2017, 06:26 AM
Whether Abberline took this approach, or didn't, requires assumptions to be made on both sides of the argument.

The extent of assumption is, to my mind, that we can assume he did his job professionally, or assume he didn't.
I am satisfied with the former assumption, given Abberline's reputation, it is the path of least resistance.


Personally, I don't assume that Abberline definitely did. Even if he had, it's still quite possible that Hutchinson put one over on him. It wouldn't have been the first or the last time that a tall tale, convincingly told, deceived an experienced detective.

Certainly, Hutchinson "could" have lied, for many of the reason's suggested by several members here. The point is, nothing we know about Hutchinson indicates this. It is an idea born purely from guesswork, not from the evidence.
Academically speaking, theories ARE supposed to be born from the evidence.

For all the accusations of lying, nothing, not one instance has ever been verified that he lied about anything.
All the negative accusations against Hutch are the result of wishful thinking, nothing is based on fact.

It is quite obvious, many members here prefer to put faith in this fanciful scenario that Hutch is a liar, without one single shred of evidence.
Yes, Hutch "could" have lied about something, but even if he did, the East end was full of people lying about something. Lying was often a matter of survival. Lying doesn't make them all killers.

Can anyone say what he lied about? - No!, and they've all had decades to come up with something.
Hutch as a liar, or suspect, is a failed hypothesis that lingers in the air like a bad smell.

Sam Flynn
05-07-2017, 06:47 AM
The extent of assumption is, to my mind, that we can assume he did his job professionally, or assume he didn't.I've no doubt that Abberline was a fine detective, but (a) I don't assume that he "must have" grilled Hutchinson; and (b) I don't assume that he was immune to being taken in by a well told fable. These assumptions have nothing to do with Abberline's professionalism, but to his humanity. Nobody is infallible.
The point is, nothing we know about Hutchinson indicates [that he was lying]. It is an idea born purely from guesswork.
No it isn't. It has everything to do with his remarkably detailed description of an ostentatiously-attired suspect, his lateness in coming forward, and the fact that key elements of his story - in terms of the sequence of events, dramatis personæ, and words - have interesting parallels in existing accounts that had already been published in the most popular newspapers of the day. In isolation, these factors might not amount to much; in combination, however, they should strike even the most sceptical as worthy of a little suspicion; if not, then perhaps it is their wishful thinking that prevents them from seeing this.

So, this idea is not borne out of "pure guesswork", not in the slightest; it is borne of reasonable scepticism in response to a story that appears, for a number of reasons, to be too good to be true.

c.d.
05-07-2017, 07:42 AM
Hello Wick and Sam,

Even if it could be shown that Hutch did indeed lie that does not necessarily mean that he was Mary's killer.

Hutch might have never been a suspect but unless Abberline et al were complete and total idiots he would have to have been a person of interest. As such, he would have been questioned. It makes no difference if those questions were politely asked while offering a cup of tea or whether each question was preceded by a brutal whack to the kidneys with a nightstick. The point is his answers had to be reasonable and believable. It is also reasonable to assume that his answers were checked out as best they could.

We speak about Abberline but it was really Abberline et al. Even if Abberline had been duped what about his superiors who read his reports? Or any of the people under him who might have been involved. Did none of them speak up and say wow this guy is a total liar and obviously a suspect?

The best that we can do is to conclude that the police at the time reasonably determined that he was not involved in Mary's murder. Could they have been duped? Absolutely. But unless we can come up with evidence beyond doubting Hutch's story we are pretty much forced to accept the conclusion of the police at the time.

c.d.

Sam Flynn
05-07-2017, 07:54 AM
Even if it could be shown that Hutch did indeed lie that does not necessarily mean that he was Mary's killer.
Indeed, CD, and I really don't believe that Hutchinson was the killer. I just think that there's a reasonable chance that he was a fantasist, who threw a serious spanner into the works by inventing Mr Astrakhan.

The Good Michael
05-07-2017, 07:57 AM
Indeed, CD, and I really don't believe that Hutchinson was the killer. I just think that there's a reasonable chance that he was a fantasist, who threw a serious spanner into the works by inventing Mr Astrakhan.

and possibly even knowledge of Kelly.

Mike

Sam Flynn
05-07-2017, 08:07 AM
and possibly even knowledge of Kelly.
There is that, too, Mike. Hutchinson's suggestion that he was somewhat well acquainted with Kelly may be seen as suspicious in itself, given what we know about her movements.

John Wheat
05-07-2017, 11:37 AM
I have said the same. With all due respect to Christer, I do not accept the Lechmere argument, so I never get involved.
Christer is no fool, he's very smart, but we must agree to disagree on Lechmere.

He's not that clever if he was he wouldn't be constantly fabricating a case against a clearly innocent man.

Wickerman
05-07-2017, 11:57 AM
No it isn't. It has everything to do with his remarkably detailed description of an ostentatiously-attired suspect, his lateness in coming forward, and the fact that key elements of his story - in terms of the sequence of events, dramatis personæ, and words - have interesting parallels in existing accounts that had already been published in the most popular newspapers of the day. In isolation, these factors might not amount to much; in combination, however, they should strike even the most sceptical as worthy of a little suspicion; if not, then perhaps it is their wishful thinking that prevents them from seeing this.

So, this idea is not borne out of "pure guesswork", not in the slightest; it is borne of reasonable scepticism in response to a story that appears, for a number of reasons, to be too good to be true.

Gareth.

Skepticism is not reasonable when the skeptic knows nothing about the process.

If you have no first-hand experience at something, how can any doubts you express be reasonable?

Practicably every accusing voice on Casebook comes from someone who has no experience with interviewing witnesses.
Stewart Evans (The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook) on the other hand, who has many years of experience interviewing witnesses, expressed here on Casebook that the depth of detail provided by Hutchinson is not unbelievable at all.
He has received very detailed statements from witnesses himself.

On the other hand, it is true that some in policework have agreed that it is not usual, but it is certainly not beyond reason either.

So long as we have experienced officers who can accept the depth of detail, what does it matter how many inexperienced civilians cannot agree?

Why is it relevant?

Abby Normal
05-07-2017, 12:04 PM
I've no doubt that Abberline was a fine detective, but (a) I don't assume that he "must have" grilled Hutchinson; and (b) I don't assume that he was immune to being taken in by a well told fable. These assumptions have nothing to do with Abberline's professionalism, but to his humanity. Nobody is infallible.

No it isn't. It has everything to do with his remarkably detailed description of an ostentatiously-attired suspect, his lateness in coming forward, and the fact that key elements of his story - in terms of the sequence of events, dramatis personæ, and words - have interesting parallels in existing accounts that had already been published in the most popular newspapers of the day. In isolation, these factors might not amount to much; in combination, however, they should strike even the most sceptical as worthy of a little suspicion; if not, then perhaps it is their wishful thinking that prevents them from seeing this.

So, this idea is not borne out of "pure guesswork", not in the slightest; it is borne of reasonable scepticism in response to a story that appears, for a number of reasons, to be too good to be true.

Well said sam

Wickerman
05-07-2017, 12:19 PM
...... But unless we can come up with evidence beyond doubting Hutch's story we are pretty much forced to accept the conclusion of the police at the time.

c.d.

Precisely, c.d.

Naysayers here jump directly from speculation to theory, completely avoiding the 'evidence' bit in the middle.

Wickerman
05-07-2017, 12:21 PM
Just a general observation.

In any murder case the crime scene often provides evidence immediately visible to the eye.
Everything else that occurs from that initial determination is often the result of speculation by police.

- "How did the burglar enter the house?" - we go looking for an entry point - speculation.

- "Who murdered this victim on the street?" - we go looking for close-circuit tv on street corners or in nearby stores - speculation.

- When police are on their hands and knees scouring a field for potential evidence, this is speculation.

When answers are not available AT the crime scene, in order to enlarge the investigation the police apply speculation.

Investigation generally begins with speculation to look for evidence.
The resulting theory comes from the evidence, NOT from the speculation.

Many Casebook armchair detectives begin with speculation, and jump directly to theory, ignoring the 'evidence' bit.
Because Hutchinson MIGHT have lied, then he MUST have lied, ergo Hutchinson is a liar.

Such conclusions being the result of ignorance not evidence.

Wickerman
05-07-2017, 12:32 PM
There is that, too, Mike. Hutchinson's suggestion that he was somewhat well acquainted with Kelly may be seen as suspicious in itself, given what we know about her movements.

That he had given her money before, and that he had known her for three years.
Three years before, Kelly was living at Breezers Hill. One landlord there had horses at Romford, Hutchinson was a Groom, with some connection to Romford.
It would be interesting if we could make the connection somehow, but as it stands we know nothing to discredit his claim.

The Good Michael
05-07-2017, 12:47 PM
That he had given her money before, and that he had known her for three years.
Three years before, Kelly was living at Breezers Hill. One landlord there had horses at Romford, Hutchinson was a Groom, with some connection to Romford.
It would be interesting if we could make the connection somehow, but as it stands we know nothing to discredit his claim.

I don't know that Hutch lied. It could be either way. If he did, I'd say it's far more likely that all things were made up with some idea that he might get a reward for his work than he lied because he was her murderer. That doesn't make much sense to me and never has.

Mike

Sam Flynn
05-07-2017, 03:40 PM
That he had given her money before, and that he had known her for three years.
Three years before, Kelly was living at Breezers Hill.Quite, which was another part of town entirely. At that time, if Hutchinson was indeed Topping - and I firmly believe that he was - he'd have been about 18 years old. A little young to have been knocking about with prostitutes on the Ratcliff Highway, methinks.One landlord there had horses at Romford, Hutchinson was a Groom, with some connection to Romford.
That's a bit of a stretch, if you don't mind me saying.

Varqm
05-07-2017, 03:45 PM
"I don't know that Hutch lied. It could be either way. If he did, I'd say it's far more likely that all things were made up with some idea that he might get a reward for his work"
Mike

Even Abberline did not during the interrogation/conversation.

If a witness tells an officer a reasonable enough story,with a straight face, how can the officer disprove/prove the story is true right there and then "during the conversation".The officer can't .It's impossible.Or it can't be scientific no matter what experience the officer had.Apparently some posters here have the scientific formula.

Plus:

Witness: Officer if you don't believe what I just told you,and I'm trying my best to describe what I saw,I can't help you further.I'm going to leave shortly.

What choice does the officer (Abberline) have but to take the statement and/or name.

A subsequent investigation then "has to be made" to verify the statement.Things like,is this person really a friend of the victim?
But what if that can't verified.What about the possibilty the witness and the victim met each other occasionally,out there in the big city,and nobody - victim's friends/acquaintance for example - remembers or can verify that? Surely this could happen.Then one have to rely on another witness's - who also was there - testimony to check the veracity of this witness's statement.You then have to decide which of the 2 witnesses is more credible.Sarah (albeit at a later time) or Hutch.

We are also then left to infer from the police officer's (who knew about the investigations more than anybody) subsequent actions and writings through the years what they think about the witness testimony.

Seaside identification.

Witness 1: I won't be able to remember the couple's faces since I was just passing by and did not have a good look.

Witness 2: Followed the couple, "stooped down and looked him in the face",watch them for 3 minutes.

Why choose witness 1 ?

Wickerman
05-07-2017, 04:31 PM
I don't know that Hutch lied. It could be either way. If he did, I'd say it's far more likely that all things were made up with some idea that he might get a reward for his work than he lied because he was her murderer. That doesn't make much sense to me and never has.

Mike

The accusation that he lied about his encounter is invalidated by Sarah Lewis herself. The court record is brief and not as detailed as the press versions, here we read more of what she stated to the court:

In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Daily News, 13 Nov. 1888.

Lewis saw the lurker, and the couple pass up the court at the same time, confirming Hutchinson's story. Lewis did not know Mary Kelly by sight so she couldn't tell the court who the woman was.

What this demonstrates is, that Hutchinson did not get the wrong night, and also that Hutchinson did not 'invent' Astrakhan.
However, Lewis was not asked to describe the man she saw, which is unfortunate, but the court was not aware that Lewis had likely actually seen Mary Kelly with a client.

Wickerman
05-07-2017, 05:13 PM
Quite, which was another part of town entirely. At that time, if Hutchinson was indeed Topping - and I firmly believe that he was - he'd have been about 18 years old. A little young to have been knocking about with prostitutes on the Ratcliff Highway, methinks.

I've never commented on the "Topping" argument except to say that I find no reason Topping couldn't have been our G.H.
If I recall, wasn't there something like 30 or so years between the date of Topping's signature and those of G. H.?
We can't expect them to be identical after a considerable passage of time even if Topping was G. H.


That's a bit of a stretch, if you don't mind me saying.

It's speculation Gareth, nothing more.
On the other hand, what do we know about George that contests his claim to have known Mary Kelly?
Anything?

Sam Flynn
05-08-2017, 11:25 AM
If I recall, wasn't there something like 30 or so years between the date of Topping's signature and those of G. H.?
We can't expect them to be identical after a considerable passage of time even if Topping was G. H.
Oh, they weren't exactly identical, Jon, but it's as near as dammit as far as I'm concerned. There is a significant degree of consistency between the samples, although some would argue the contrary, and I have no doubts whatsoever.
On the other hand, what do we know about George that contests his claim to have known Mary Kelly?
Anything?I just find it remarkable that he should have known her during her Ratcliff Highway days, that's all; she had apparently only just arrived in the East End, yet here we have this teenage lad getting all chummy with her from the get-go, only to end up living round the corner from her three years later when they're still fast friends and he's lending her money. It's not impossible, but it doesn't ring quite true to me. It's as if he's beefing up the "familiarity" aspect of his story to justify his exchange with Kelly on the night of her death.

Abby Normal
05-08-2017, 12:41 PM
"I don't know that Hutch lied. It could be either way. If he did, I'd say it's far more likely that all things were made up with some idea that he might get a reward for his work"
Mike

Even Abberline did not during the interrogation/conversation.

If a witness tells an officer a reasonable enough story,with a straight face, how can the officer disprove/prove the story is true right there and then "during the conversation".The officer can't .It's impossible.Or it can't be scientific no matter what experience the officer had.Apparently some posters here have the scientific formula.

Plus:

Witness: Officer if you don't believe what I just told you,and I'm trying my best to describe what I saw,I can't help you further.I'm going to leave shortly.

What choice does the officer (Abberline) have but to take the statement and/or name.

A subsequent investigation then "has to be made" to verify the statement.Things like,is this person really a friend of the victim?
But what if that can't verified.What about the possibilty the witness and the victim met each other occasionally,out there in the big city,and nobody - victim's friends/acquaintance for example - remembers or can verify that? Surely this could happen.Then one have to rely on another witness's - who also was there - testimony to check the veracity of this witness's statement.You then have to decide which of the 2 witnesses is more credible.Sarah (albeit at a later time) or Hutch.

We are also then left to infer from the police officer's (who knew about the investigations more than anybody) subsequent actions and writings through the years what they think about the witness testimony.

Seaside identification.

Witness 1: I won't be able to remember the couple's faces since I was just passing by and did not have a good look.

Witness 2: Followed the couple, "stooped down and looked him in the face",watch them for 3 minutes.

Why choose witness 1 ?

exactly. Hutch SHOULD have been the best witness in the whole dam case. he knew the victim, he got a great look at the suspect, heard him speak, thought he had seen him before and could definitely ID.

John G
05-08-2017, 12:53 PM
"I don't know that Hutch lied. It could be either way. If he did, I'd say it's far more likely that all things were made up with some idea that he might get a reward for his work"
Mike

Even Abberline did not during the interrogation/conversation.

If a witness tells an officer a reasonable enough story,with a straight face, how can the officer disprove/prove the story is true right there and then "during the conversation".The officer can't .It's impossible.Or it can't be scientific no matter what experience the officer had.Apparently some posters here have the scientific formula.

Plus:

Witness: Officer if you don't believe what I just told you,and I'm trying my best to describe what I saw,I can't help you further.I'm going to leave shortly.

What choice does the officer (Abberline) have but to take the statement and/or name.

A subsequent investigation then "has to be made" to verify the statement.Things like,is this person really a friend of the victim?
But what if that can't verified.What about the possibilty the witness and the victim met each other occasionally,out there in the big city,and nobody - victim's friends/acquaintance for example - remembers or can verify that? Surely this could happen.Then one have to rely on another witness's - who also was there - testimony to check the veracity of this witness's statement.You then have to decide which of the 2 witnesses is more credible.Sarah (albeit at a later time) or Hutch.

We are also then left to infer from the police officer's (who knew about the investigations more than anybody) subsequent actions and writings through the years what they think about the witness testimony.

Seaside identification.

Witness 1: I won't be able to remember the couple's faces since I was just passing by and did not have a good look.

Witness 2: Followed the couple, "stooped down and looked him in the face",watch them for 3 minutes.

Why choose witness 1 ?

The same could be said of Israel Schwartz and Mary Ann Cox, who were both, on the face of it, better witnesses than Lawende.

Pierre
05-08-2017, 01:26 PM
Just a general observation.

In any murder case the crime scene often provides evidence immediately visible to the eye.
Everything else that occurs from that initial determination is often the result of speculation by police.

- "How did the burglar enter the house?" - we go looking for an entry point - speculation.

- "Who murdered this victim on the street?" - we go looking for close-circuit tv on street corners or in nearby stores - speculation.

- When police are on their hands and knees scouring a field for potential evidence, this is speculation.

When answers are not available AT the crime scene, in order to enlarge the investigation the police apply speculation.

Investigation generally begins with speculation to look for evidence.
The resulting theory comes from the evidence, NOT from the speculation.

Many Casebook armchair detectives begin with speculation, and jump directly to theory, ignoring the 'evidence' bit.
Because Hutchinson MIGHT have lied, then he MUST have lied, ergo Hutchinson is a liar.

Such conclusions being the result of ignorance not evidence.

It doesn´t matter if Hutchinson lied or not. The problem is that no one can connect his statements to any evidence for anyone being a killer in all the murder cases. We need many sources indicating that x was a killer. There have to be sources for more than one murder, preferably for all of them. There must be sources for a motive. Hutchinsons statements are biased, there is a tendency in the testimony. I think that Abberline knew Hutchinson and let him testify as a strategy to divert people´s attention from what really happened in the Kelly case.

John G
05-08-2017, 01:29 PM
It doesn´t matter if Hutchinson lied or not. The problem is that no one can connect his statements to any evidence for anyone being a killer in all the murder cases. We need many sources indicating that x was a killer. There have to be sources for more than one murder, preferably for all of them. There must be sources for a motive. Hutchinsons statements are biased, there is a tendency in the testimony. I think that Abberline knew Hutchinson and let him testify as a strategy to divert people´s attention from what really happened in the Kelly case.

Abberline knew Hutchinson?

Wickerman
05-08-2017, 03:27 PM
It doesn´t matter if Hutchinson lied or not. The problem is that no one can connect his statements to any evidence for anyone being a killer in all the murder cases......

Lewis's testimony shows Hutch didn't lie. Lewis also saw a couple walking up the passage.
Whether the description of Astrachan was accurate, or even true, is the only question.

As Mrs Kennedy claims to have seen Kelly outside the Britannia sometime around 3:00 am, it is quite possible in my estimation that Astrachan was not her killer anyway.
Kelly hit the streets for the third and last time that night around 3 O'clock, and it was then that she met her killer.

First time she went out she brought Blotchy back. The second time, she brought Astrachan back, but the third time she brought her killer back.

Varqm
05-08-2017, 03:42 PM
The same could be said of Israel Schwartz and Mary Ann Cox, who were both, on the face of it, better witnesses than Lawende.

Mary Ann Cox? The only thing I remember,if correctly, about her is she came to Miller's Court,her 2nd time that night, at 3:00 A.M..She did not hear the Oh,Murder cry.

Varqm
05-08-2017, 03:44 PM
exactly. Hutch SHOULD have been the best witness in the whole dam case. he knew the victim, he got a great look at the suspect, heard him speak, thought he had seen him before and could definitely ID.

Yes.The police officer's subsequent actions and writings - not mentioning Hutch - speaks loud.But just thinking out loud, there is also that remote possibility they changed and thought of Astrakhan man as a witness rather than a murderer.But the way they looked for him makes me doubt it.

SirJohnFalstaff
05-08-2017, 06:40 PM
There's a possibility that Hutchinson didn't even know Kelly.

Mike

Yes. This.

Bridewell
05-09-2017, 08:43 AM
When the police (Badham and Abberline) questioned Hutchinson they had no idea of the value (or worthlessness) of his evidence. Initially at least, he seems to have convinced Abberline that his account was true. Statements from witnesses are not written in the witness's own words. They are a result of a question and answer session and the structured whole is compiled by the statement-taking officer. It is the officer, not the witness, who has ultimate control of what is included and what is left out. The fact that Hutchinson doesn't say how he saw as much detail as he did does not necessarily mean that he wasn't asked that question.

To Abberline and Badham Hutchinson just might have turned out to be an invaluable witness and it would have been somewhat foolish to have themselves done the job of a defence advocate by casting doubt on the value of what he said. Was Hutchinson a mugger or a pimp (or both)? We have no way of knowing, but again that doesn't mean that Abberline and Badham didn't know. I have long contended that Hutchinson saw the detail he did (jewellery much of it) because he was hoping to relieve Astrakhan Man of it when he emerged. He waited around for a long time before (so he said) giving up and going elsewhere. Chivalrous concern for MJK? Unlikely IMHO. Eye for the main chance and the opportunity of some lucrative easy pickings? Much more likely. The police though, had a vested interest in not highlighting anything unfavourable they knew about someone who could have been a key witness. Especially in that day and age George Hutchinson, honest working geezer was much more likely to be believed, by a jury, than George Hutchinson mugger and/or pimp.

John G
05-09-2017, 12:35 PM
Mary Ann Cox? The only thing I remember,if correctly, about her is she came to Miller's Court,her 2nd time that night, at 3:00 A.M..She did not hear the Oh,Murder cry.

She gave testimony at the inquest about a suspect with a blotchy complexion.

caz
05-10-2017, 05:18 AM
As Mrs Kennedy claims to have seen Kelly outside the Britannia sometime around 3:00 am, it is quite possible in my estimation that Astrachan was not her killer anyway.
Kelly hit the streets for the third and last time that night around 3 O'clock, and it was then that she met her killer.

First time she went out she brought Blotchy back. The second time, she brought Astrachan back, but the third time she brought her killer back.

Hi Jon,

Now that is an intriguing thought, and one I can't recall reading before. A later timing would be more in line with the murders of Tabram, Nichols and Chapman, while Stride was killed earlier, which may have discomfited the ripper and led to the double event. With Kelly he could have reverted to what worked best for him and felt safer, with fewer people around to witness anything.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
05-10-2017, 05:31 AM
When the police (Badham and Abberline) questioned Hutchinson they had no idea of the value (or worthlessness) of his evidence. Initially at least, he seems to have convinced Abberline that his account was true. Statements from witnesses are not written in the witness's own words. They are a result of a question and answer session and the structured whole is compiled by the statement-taking officer. It is the officer, not the witness, who has ultimate control of what is included and what is left out. The fact that Hutchinson doesn't say how he saw as much detail as he did does not necessarily mean that he wasn't asked that question.

To Abberline and Badham Hutchinson just might have turned out to be an invaluable witness and it would have been somewhat foolish to have themselves done the job of a defence advocate by casting doubt on the value of what he said. Was Hutchinson a mugger or a pimp (or both)? We have no way of knowing, but again that doesn't mean that Abberline and Badham didn't know. I have long contended that Hutchinson saw the detail he did (jewellery much of it) because he was hoping to relieve Astrakhan Man of it when he emerged. He waited around for a long time before (so he said) giving up and going elsewhere. Chivalrous concern for MJK? Unlikely IMHO. Eye for the main chance and the opportunity of some lucrative easy pickings? Much more likely. The police though, had a vested interest in not highlighting anything unfavourable they knew about someone who could have been a key witness. Especially in that day and age George Hutchinson, honest working geezer was much more likely to be believed, by a jury, than George Hutchinson mugger and/or pimp.

Great post, Colin.

I've always found Hutch's recorded explanation for hanging around so long less than credible, and felt that Abberline would have questioned him further about this and got an answer he could accept, if not approve of or broadcast, for the reasons you suggest. 45 minutes in the hope of seeing Flash Harry again, and all because he appeared a better class of customer than Kelly usually pulled? Pull the other one. That's not even an explanation. After all, this witness was claiming to be the last man but one to see Kelly alive.

Love,

Caz
X

Varqm
05-10-2017, 11:41 AM
She gave testimony at the inquest about a suspect with a blotchy complexion.

Thank you.How could I miss.:laugh4: Blotchy is of course interesting.I wonder if he was the Joe Julia Venturney says Kelly was fond of.

Abby Normal
05-10-2017, 12:17 PM
Hi Jon,

Now that is an intriguing thought, and one I can't recall reading before. A later timing would be more in line with the murders of Tabram, Nichols and Chapman, while Stride was killed earlier, which may have discomfited the ripper and led to the double event. With Kelly he could have reverted to what worked best for him and felt safer, with fewer people around to witness anything.

Love,

Caz
X

that scenario would put hutch right back in the cross hairs though, and I don't think mr wicky would want that, nosiree.

Abby Normal
05-10-2017, 12:21 PM
Great post, Colin.

I've always found Hutch's recorded explanation for hanging around so long less than credible, and felt that Abberline would have questioned him further about this and got an answer he could accept, if not approve of or broadcast, for the reasons you suggest. 45 minutes in the hope of seeing Flash Harry again, and all because he appeared a better class of customer than Kelly usually pulled? Pull the other one. That's not even an explanation. After all, this witness was claiming to be the last man but one to see Kelly alive.

Love,

Caz
X

bingo
it shows stalking behavior at worst and at best wanting to see mary again, possibly for a hook up and or place to crash. in between it shows an unusual interest in her, perhaps a dab of jealousy.

Varqm
05-10-2017, 01:05 PM
The same could be said of Israel Schwartz and Mary Ann Cox, who were both, on the face of it, better witnesses than Lawende.

The probably chose Lawende because he got two companions to verify his testimony.Verification or some,otherwise lots of people will get hanged if only he said she said.

Abby Normal
05-10-2017, 01:10 PM
The probably chose Lawende because he got two companions to verify his testimony.Verification,otherwise lots of people will get hanged.

yup and because he was "respectable"

Sam Flynn
05-10-2017, 01:13 PM
it shows stalking behavior at worst... in between it shows an unusual interest in her, perhaps a dab of jealousy.I agree. Hutchinson's attention to detail, I'd suggest, went rather further than most people's would have under such circumstances.

John G
05-10-2017, 01:24 PM
The probably chose Lawende because he got two companions to verify his testimony.Verification or some,otherwise lots of people will get hanged if only he said she said.

Maybe. Or maybe it was because of proximity of sighting to time of death. Or maybe he was the only witness they hadn't lost track of!

Of course, an unverified eyewitness account still has evidential value. But then, eyewitnesses have annoying tendency to get things wrong: http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/mistakenid.html

John G
05-10-2017, 01:27 PM
I agree. Hutchinson's attention to detail, I'd suggest, went rather further than most people's would have under such circumstances.

Of course, there's always the possibility he got a little bit carried away and exaggerated what he actually witnessed.

GUT
05-10-2017, 01:32 PM
I agree. Hutchinson's attention to detail, I'd suggest, went rather further than most people's would have under such circumstances.

Which proves ??????

Sam Flynn
05-10-2017, 02:31 PM
Which proves ??????
I wouldn't say "prove", but it suggests to me that he either was unusually (as in obsessively) interested in Kelly, or he was making it up. Either way, both in terms of his (alleged) actions on the night, and the detail of what he appeared to recall, he was not a run-of-the-mill witness.

Sam Flynn
05-10-2017, 02:34 PM
Of course, there's always the possibility he got a little bit carried away and exaggerated what he actually witnessed.Possibly, John, in which case he got carried away big style.

GUT
05-10-2017, 03:06 PM
I wouldn't say "prove", but it suggests to me that he either was unusually (as in obsessively) interested in Kelly, or he was making it up. Either way, both in terms of his (alleged) actions on the night, and the detail of what he appeared to recall, he was not a run-of-the-mill witness.

What rules out more observant than many others?

Wickerman
05-10-2017, 03:46 PM
... Statements from witnesses are not written in the witness's own words. They are a result of a question and answer session and the structured whole is compiled by the statement-taking officer. It is the officer, not the witness, who has ultimate control of what is included and what is left out....

We do have other examples of witness statements to police associated with the Kelly Inquest.
The statement by Bowyer is recorded in the third-person ("he knocked", "he knew", "he threw"), clearly worded by the investigating officer - Abberline, not Bowyer.
All the others are taken down in the first-person ("I saw", "I heard", "I went", etc.), and the phrasing in some cases betrays the terminology of an educated person - again, Abberline.

Wickerman
05-10-2017, 03:56 PM
bingo
it shows stalking behavior at worst and at best wanting to see mary again, possibly for a hook up and or place to crash. in between it shows an unusual interest in her, perhaps a dab of jealousy.

But does it make him her killer?

Wickerman
05-10-2017, 04:03 PM
that scenario would put hutch right back in the cross hairs though, and I don't think mr wicky would want that, nosiree.

But anyone who thinks Hutch was the killer should have no argument with the proposal. We don't know where Hutch was after he left Millers Court about 3:00 am.
The suspect though, in this scenario is the Britannia-man, the same one who accosted women earlier in the week. A far more practical suspect, he's been hiding in plain sight all the time.

Michael W Richards
05-10-2017, 05:58 PM
The accusation that he lied about his encounter is invalidated by Sarah Lewis herself. The court record is brief and not as detailed as the press versions, here we read more of what she stated to the court:

In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Daily News, 13 Nov. 1888.

Lewis saw the lurker, and the couple pass up the court at the same time, confirming Hutchinson's story. Lewis did not know Mary Kelly by sight so she couldn't tell the court who the woman was.

What this demonstrates is, that Hutchinson did not get the wrong night, and also that Hutchinson did not 'invent' Astrakhan.
However, Lewis was not asked to describe the man she saw, which is unfortunate, but the court was not aware that Lewis had likely actually seen Mary Kelly with a client.

Seems to me that Hutchinson came in after Sarah had been on the stand, he may well have been in there and taken notes for all we know, and its also a stretch to state somewhat empirically that they were describing the same couple. They were both drunk in her account, to name but one discrepancy. The Astrakan Man may well be a confluence of reality and imagination, but at the very least parts of Hutchinsons rather specific recollections were almost certainly fabricated.

Perhaps in modern context,... because we can prove that the president of the united states..notice the lower case.... has knowingly and provably lied about many things, does that then make any claim he makes suspect..or only the ones that are remarkable in respects? We can say fairly safely some of his account, (Hutch), was assuredly made up. For me, that makes the remarkable feature of his story less trustworthy. The remarkable feature being that he was actually friends with Mary Kelly and spoke with her after 1:30am on the streets with someone he could identify down to a specific lapel pin..since all we know for certain is that her candle was blown out and her room was silent just before 1:30.

Hutchinsons story was not used as the foundation for any specific police actions after Nov 14th, and we have statements suggesting that he, or his account, was "discredited". Since he said he and Mary were friends and he waits four full days before offering what, if true, is essential circumstantial evidence in her murder investigation (which would be useless after 4 days...that "suspect could be on a ship bound for India for a few days already), it seems reasonable his motivations for coming forward were not to provide the police with a viable suspect they might pursue.

Wickerman
05-10-2017, 06:28 PM
Seems to me that Hutchinson came in after Sarah had been on the stand, he may well have been in there and taken notes for all we know....

In that case Hutchinson would have been seen by Abberline. The town hall room was extremely small and very few members of the public were admitted.


....and its also a stretch to state somewhat empirically that they were describing the same couple.

Two stories, both involving a couple passing up the court, and a lurker looking up the court, at the same time, at the same location, and you don't see the connection?
Are you kidding?

They were both drunk in her account, to name but one discrepancy.

Michael.
The Daily Telegraph worded it this way:
The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.

We must look at all the press coverage. Critiquing one version without consulting the others will only provide you with a partial story.


The Astrakan Man may well be a confluence of reality and imagination, but at the very least parts of Hutchinsons rather specific recollections were almost certainly fabricated.

Well thats conjecture - lets stick with what is in evidence, leave emotion out of it.


Hutchinsons story was not used as the foundation for any specific police actions after Nov 14th,...

If Hutchinson's story was dismissed by police (who cares what the Star thought), it is difficult to understand why, when the middle-aged Jew, Joseph Isaacs, sporting an Astrachan coat, was arrested on Dec. 6th, that Abberline retorted "we've got the right man at last", or words to that effect.

Wickerman
05-10-2017, 07:01 PM
I agree. Hutchinson's attention to detail, I'd suggest, went rather further than most people's would have under such circumstances.

There's no question he went into great detail. The usual objection is "no-one could remember detail to that extent", which is demonstrably and patently untrue.
So why keep flogging a dead horse?

You grade his words as:
".....further than most people's would have under such circumstances."

Sure, no problem.
We don't know who Hutchinson was, or what abilities he had.
So why characterize him as "normal", and then dismiss him, 'because "normal" people can't do that'?

My eldest daughter is a supervisor in a nursing home. One of the residents is an old man who is one of these people who you can identify a past event, or just pick a past calendar date, even 30 -50 years ago, and he can tell you the day of the week.

That is not "normal" by any stretch of the imagination. Yet he is no-one special, just an ordinary pensioner.
Why does everybody HAVE to be "normal", and then judged accordingly?

The world is full of people who have exceptional abilities, yet are just everyday folk. I know it, and you know it - so why pretend you don't?

John Wheat
05-10-2017, 10:50 PM
What rules out more observant than many others?

Nothing whatsoever.

caz
05-11-2017, 02:57 AM
that scenario would put hutch right back in the cross hairs though, and I don't think mr wicky would want that, nosiree.

It is what it is, Abby.

It would also put Blotchy back in the frame, as he could have felt it unsafe to do the business while Kelly was still singing her bloody heart out (:oops: that pun was truly unintentional!) and met up with her again later.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
05-11-2017, 03:15 AM
bingo
it shows stalking behavior at worst and at best wanting to see mary again, possibly for a hook up and or place to crash. in between it shows an unusual interest in her, perhaps a dab of jealousy.

Speculation of course.

But if Flash Harry only existed in Hutch's vivid imagination, as I think you believe, you still have to explain the 45 minutes, if Kelly was in there alone all that time, just waiting to be relieved of her innards. The longer Hutch spent waiting in the court, to no apparent advantage, the more chance he'd be seen lurking by witnesses other than just Lewis. I think he could have been waiting for Blotchy to emerge, but because he hadn't seen him enter, he only knew Kelly was entertaining someone and being unable to describe that man to the police, he invented a likely suspect cobbled together from the press reports.

If he lied about the whole episode and wasn't even there, again you have to explain why he said he was there for 45 minutes, allowing everyone from Abberline to Abby to speculate about his motives for such a vigil.

In his statement, he seemed more interested in the man than in Kelly, given his copious references to him being flashily attired, which could reflect an ulterior motive to relieve the harmless looking gent from his bling when he emerged, and possibly getting a bed for the rest of the night into the bargain.

Again, it's all speculation, but this makes the most sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
05-11-2017, 03:40 AM
Hutchinson's attention to detail, I'd suggest, went rather further than most people's would have under such circumstances.

Hi Gareth,

But how does his attention to detail concerning Flash Harry suggest an unusual interest or jealousy, let alone stalking behaviour, in relation to Kelly? I thought your belief was that Hutch made the whole thing up and probably never met the woman.

If you concede he may have known Kelly well enough to become somewhat obsessed by her, do you also concede he could have been there that night, but invented Flash Harry to cover his back, whether he had anything to hide or not? I still have great difficulty in imagining he'd have come forward at all in those circumstances, if he did indeed have one of the worst crimes ever to hide.

Love,

Caz
X

Sam Flynn
05-11-2017, 05:57 AM
But how does his attention to detail concerning Flash Harry suggest an unusual interest or jealousy, let alone stalking behaviour, in relation to Kelly? I thought your belief was that Hutch made the whole thing up and probably never met the woman.Indeed it is, Caz. It's either/or as far as I'm concerned; either he made it up completely (which is what I believe), or he was an obsessive with an apparently unhealthy concern about what the object of his obsession was up to. Either way, he cannot be classified as a run-of-the-mill witness.
If you concede he may have known Kelly well enough to become somewhat obsessed by her
I don't believe that he knew her that well, certainly not for three years, and certainly not to have given her a "few shillings" from time to time. I believe he had to come up with the "familiarity" bit as a means to explain his completely OTT interest in what Kelly and Astrakhan got up to. ("Oh, yeah, we were really, really good friends. I've known her since I was 18, and I used to help her out by sharing a fair chunk of my wages with her whenever she was desperate. That's how good a friend I was and that's why I followed her so closely the other night, and made sure I gave the geezer a good once-over.")

Sam Flynn
05-11-2017, 06:11 AM
The world is full of people who have exceptional abilities, yet are just everyday folk. I know it, and you know it - so why pretend you don't?I'm not pretending anything, Jon, and I'm certainly not about to pretend that there's nothing suspicious about Hutchinson's statement; it's hugely suspicous. Its details, and the sheer level of detail it contains, are so self-evidently improbable that I honestly can't see how one could argue to the contrary.

By the way, I bought Stephen Senise's recently-published book Jewbaiter last night, and I'm halfway through it. His exposition of the flaws in Hutchinson's account, to say nothing of the apparent echoes/borrowings from then-current (and not-so-recent) press reports, is quite fascinating. The fact that Senise's book is so very well written is an added bonus. Wholeheartedly recommended.

Abby Normal
05-11-2017, 06:26 AM
But does it make him her killer?

no. not necessarily.

Abby Normal
05-11-2017, 06:39 AM
Speculation of course.

But if Flash Harry only existed in Hutch's vivid imagination, as I think you believe, you still have to explain the 45 minutes, if Kelly was in there alone all that time, just waiting to be relieved of her innards. The longer Hutch spent waiting in the court, to no apparent advantage, the more chance he'd be seen lurking by witnesses other than just Lewis. I think he could have been waiting for Blotchy to emerge, but because he hadn't seen him enter, he only knew Kelly was entertaining someone and being unable to describe that man to the police, he invented a likely suspect cobbled together from the press reports.

If he lied about the whole episode and wasn't even there, again you have to explain why he said he was there for 45 minutes, allowing everyone from Abberline to Abby to speculate about his motives for such a vigil.

In his statement, he seemed more interested in the man than in Kelly, given his copious references to him being flashily attired, which could reflect an ulterior motive to relieve the harmless looking gent from his bling when he emerged, and possibly getting a bed for the rest of the night into the bargain.

Again, it's all speculation, but this makes the most sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
for me if hutch never saw mary at all and made up the whole thing, then In all likelihood he went to her place looking for a place to crash, maybe a hook up. realized she was already in there with someone and waited around for that person to leave, who was probably Blotchy.

and his amount of attention to Aman IMHO was to convince the police he was a good witness.

caz
05-11-2017, 06:48 AM
Indeed it is, Caz. It's either/or as far as I'm concerned; either he made it up completely (which is what I believe), or he was an obsessive with an apparently unhealthy concern about what the object of his obsession was up to. Either way, he cannot be classified as a run-of-the-mill witness.

I don't believe that he knew her that well, certainly not for three years, and certainly not to have given her a "few shillings" from time to time. I believe he had to come up with the "familiarity" bit as a means to explain his completely OTT interest in what Kelly and Astrakhan got up to. ("Oh, yeah, we were really, really good friends. I've known her since I was 18, and I used to help her out by sharing a fair chunk of my wages with her whenever she was desperate. That's how good a friend I was and that's why I followed her so closely the other night, and made sure I gave the geezer a good once-over.")

Cheers, Gareth.

But then, if he did make up the whole thing for attention and/or financial reward, why did he need to go so 'completely OTT' with his interest in what the couple 'got up to' that he also had to claim he knew her well - which has always been like a red hankie to a bull, in terms of arousing police suspicions of involvement? I can understand adding plenty of colour to make the story newsworthy, but not to the extent of having to invent a relationship with the victim.

More to the point, how would you explain his claim to a 45 minute vigil outside the crime scene, if he knew that nobody, including Lewis, could have seen him even for a second, because he was never there? What was that all about? He said he had no qualms about his panto villain at the time, so why not simply say he followed them back to witness the man disappearing into the room after courteously holding the door open for Kelly?

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
05-11-2017, 06:56 AM
Cheers, Gareth.

But then, if he did make up the whole thing for attention and/or financial reward, why did he need to go so 'completely OTT' with his interest in what the couple 'got up to' that he also had to claim he knew her well - which has always been like a red hankie to a bull, in terms of arousing police suspicions of involvement? I can understand adding plenty of colour to make the story newsworthy, but not to the extent of having to invent a relationship with the victim.

More to the point, how would you explain his claim to a 45 minute vigil outside the crime scene, if he knew that nobody, including Lewis, could have seen him even for a second, because he was never there? What was that all about? He said he had no qualms about his panto villain at the time, so why not simply say he followed them back to witness the man disappearing into the room after courteously holding the door open for Kelly?

Love,

Caz
X

because he was there, whether he saw mary that night or not.

IMHO ithink more likely he did see her, got the blow off, and then shortly returned to her place and waited.

caz
05-11-2017, 07:12 AM
Hi Caz
for me if hutch never saw mary at all and made up the whole thing, then In all likelihood he went to her place looking for a place to crash, maybe a hook up. realized she was already in there with someone and waited around for that person to leave, who was probably Blotchy.

and his amount of attention to Aman IMHO was to convince the police he was a good witness.

That would work for me, Abby.

Nobody questions why Blotchy never came forward at all, yet some regard Hutch's tardy arrival at the nick with deep suspicion. If Hutch was the killer, it follows that Blotchy was innocent, but it was the latter who was the complete no-show. Yes, I know it all hinges on being seen by a witness actually entering that room, but still. I can perfectly well understand why Hutch was so backward in coming forward if he was hanging around that night for any length of time but had nothing to do with the murder. It was a difficult position to find himself in. Not too much less difficult than the position an innocent Blotchy must have found himself in.

No way do I think the ripper, be it Hutch or Blotchy or A.N.Other, would have put himself anywhere near Kelly or that room unless he had some sort of death wish. We know that neither Blotchy nor A.N.Other did so, therefore Hutch would have had to be unique among all other potential suspects in that respect - if he had been Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

Sam Flynn
05-11-2017, 07:13 AM
But then, if he did make up the whole thing for attention and/or financial reward, why did he need to go so 'completely OTT' with his interest in what the couple 'got up to' that he also had to claim he knew her wellBecause how else would he have been able to explain his inordinate interest in Kelly? "I didn't know her that well/didn't know her at all, but I followed her and her man and spied on them for the best part of an hour" just wouldn't cut it.
which has always been like a red hankie to a bull, in terms of arousing police suspicions of involvement?We know that, but perhaps we're less naïve.More to the point, how would you explain his claim to a 45 minute vigil outside the crime scene
He wanted to paint himself as a really diligent witness but overshot the mark, having to invent a crazy "back-story" to account for his absurdly long vigil.

Furthermore, having read the papers, he had to place a suspicious bloke inside 13 Miller's Court at approx the time Lewis saw Kelly and her man on the street, and Hutch had to absent himself from the scene before the cry of "Murder!" was heard. The 45 minute vigil would fill that gap nicely.

caz
05-11-2017, 07:15 AM
because he was there, whether he saw mary that night or not.

Sorry, Abby, but I was addressing Gareth, to see what he makes of the claimed 45 minutes if Hutch wasn't there.

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
05-11-2017, 07:27 AM
That would work for me, Abby.

Nobody questions why Blotchy never came forward at all, yet some regard Hutch's tardy arrival at the nick with deep suspicion. If Hutch was the killer, it follows that Blotchy was innocent, but it was the latter who was the complete no-show. Yes, I know it all hinges on being seen by a witness actually entering that room, but still. I can perfectly well understand why Hutch was so backward in coming forward if he was hanging around that night for any length of time but had nothing to do with the murder. It was a difficult position to find himself in. Not too much less difficult than the position an innocent Blotchy must have found himself in.

No way do I think the ripper, be it Hutch or Blotchy or A.N.Other, would have put himself anywhere near Kelly or that room unless he had some sort of death wish. We know that neither Blotchy nor A.N.Other did so, therefore Hutch would have had to be unique among all other potential suspects in that respect - if he had been Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
yes of course. as you might know Ive got Blotchy and hutch suspects 1 and 1a on my list.

Il admit-Hutches coming forward is a check mark against his candidacy as a valid suspect, because, as you say-most killers don't do that, although it happens.

but its not enough to eliminate him as a suspect for me obviously, as hes got so many other red flags.

conversly, Blotchys not coming forward is a check mark for his validity as a suspect IMHO.

Sam Flynn
05-11-2017, 07:29 AM
conversly, Blotchys not coming forward is a check mark for his validity as a suspect IMHO.
Absolutely.

caz
05-11-2017, 07:51 AM
Because how else would he have been able to explain his inordinate interest in Kelly? "I didn't know her that well/didn't know her at all, but I followed her and her man and spied on them for the best part of an hour" just wouldn't cut it.

But Gareth, he didn't need to claim an 'inordinate interest' in Kelly to claim an 'inordinate interest' in the man with her, who allegedly appeared like a fish out of water in those parts. He didn't need to claim that he spied on them for the best part of an hour either if none of it ever happened. To make the story sing for its supper he need only have claimed to be a nosey bugger who almost bumped into the couple getting friendly and decided to watch, then follow, as dirt-poor woman led unusually well-clad man into Miller's Court, finally seeing both disappearing into the very room which he subsequently learned had been turned into a veritable slaughterhouse.

He wanted to paint himself as a really diligent witness but overshot the mark, having to invent a crazy "back-story" to account for his absurdly long vigil.

But how does that work with his claim that he didn't believe the man posed any risk to Kelly? And what part of this 'crazy "back-story"' accounts for him hanging around for 45 minutes? He said nothing about wanting to see if his friend was okay, his own lame explanation being that he just wanted yet another gawp at the man because he seemed a step up from Kelly's usual clients. It's a pile of toss, isn't it, if he got such a good look at the start?

Furthermore, having read the papers, he had to place a suspicious bloke inside 13 Miller's Court at approx the time Lewis saw Kelly and her man on the street, and Hutch had to absent himself from the scene before the cry of "Murder!" was heard. The 45 minute vigil would fill that gap nicely.

Why the need to fill the whole gap though? It's not as if he claimed to see or hear anything in all that time. Surely just a claim to see this 'suspicious bloke' (who didn't strike him as suspicious at the time) enter the murder room with the victim would have sufficed, without putting himself nearly so long at the scene. What did he stand to gain from that part of the story, if it wasn't true, apart from raised eyebrows for all the wrong reasons?

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
05-11-2017, 07:55 AM
But Gareth, he didn't need to claim an 'inordinate interest' in Kelly to claim an 'inordinate interest' in the man with her, who allegedly appeared like a fish out of water in those parts. He didn't need to claim that he spied on them for the best part of an hour either if none of it ever happened. To make the story sing for its supper he need only have claimed to be a nosey bugger who almost bumped into the couple getting friendly and decided to watch, then follow, as dirt-poor woman led unusually well-clad man into Miller's Court, finally seeing both disappearing into the very room which he subsequently learned had been turned into a veritable slaughterhouse.



But how does that work with his claim that he didn't believe the man posed any risk to Kelly? And what part of this 'crazy "back-story"' accounts for him hanging around for 45 minutes? He said nothing about wanting to see if his friend was okay, his own lame explanation being that he just wanted yet another gawp at the man because he seemed a step up from Kelly's usual clients. It's a pile of toss, isn't it, if he got such a good look at the start?



Why the need to fill the whole gap though? It's not as if he claimed to see or hear anything in all that time. Surely just a claim to see this 'suspicious bloke' (who didn't strike him as suspicious at the time) enter the murder room with the victim would have sufficed, without putting himself nearly so long at the scene. What did he stand to gain from that part of the story, if it wasn't true, apart from raised eyebrows for all the wrong reasons?

Love,

Caz
X

he needed to fill the gap because he probably was there the whole time, and wasn't sure if anyone else saw him and when.

Sam Flynn
05-11-2017, 09:19 AM
But Gareth, he didn't need to claim an 'inordinate interest' in Kelly to claim an 'inordinate interest' in the man with her, who allegedly appeared like a fish out of water in those parts.
A very dry fish, at that. Hutchinson never once mentions the rain, but has plenty to say about spats, red gemstones, red hankies, turned-up moustaches, gold watch-chains, astrakhan collars, trews, shirts and ties, hats (turned down in middle), mysterious parcels with straps... and yer man doing his soft-shoe shuffle through Spitalfields in his bonny button boots.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

PS: I got the nugget about Hutch's not mentioning the rain from Stephen Senise's book. The "soft-shoe shuffle" reference is apposite in this context, too, but I won't give away too many spoilers. Get the book, folks! You won't be disappointed.

Abby Normal
05-11-2017, 09:29 AM
A very dry fish, at that. Hutchinson never once mentions the rain, but has plenty to say about spats, red gemstones, red hankies, turned-up moustaches, gold watch-chains, astrakhan collars, trews, shirts and ties, hats (turned down in middle), mysterious parcels with straps... and yer man doing his soft-shoe shuffle through Spitalfields in his bonny button boots.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

PS: I got the nugget about Hutch's not mentioning the rain from Stephen Senise's book. The "soft-shoe shuffle" reference is apposite in this context, too, but I won't give away too many spoilers. Get the book, folks! You won't be disappointed.

whats the title and whats it about?

Sam Flynn
05-11-2017, 10:31 AM
Hello Abbywhats the title and whats it about?
It's called Jewbaiter, sub-titled "Jack the Ripper: New Evidence & Theory".

Edit: Missed the "what's it about" bit. JTR (obviously), but it extensively covers the antisemitism/xenophobia that surrounded, and perhaps fed, the Ripper phenomenon. As I'm particularly interested in the history of the Jews in the East End, I'm finding it a fascinating read.

Abby Normal
05-11-2017, 11:04 AM
Hello Abby
It's called Jewbaiter, sub-titled "Jack the Ripper: New Evidence & Theory".

Edit: Missed the "what's it about" bit. JTR (obviously), but it extensively covers the antisemitism/xenophobia that surrounded, and perhaps fed, the Ripper phenomenon. As I'm particularly interested in the history of the Jews in the East End, I'm finding it a fascinating read.

ok thanks

John G
05-11-2017, 11:23 AM
A very dry fish, at that. Hutchinson never once mentions the rain, but has plenty to say about spats, red gemstones, red hankies, turned-up moustaches, gold watch-chains, astrakhan collars, trews, shirts and ties, hats (turned down in middle), mysterious parcels with straps... and yer man doing his soft-shoe shuffle through Spitalfields in his bonny button boots.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

PS: I got the nugget about Hutch's not mentioning the rain from Stephen Senise's book. The "soft-shoe shuffle" reference is apposite in this context, too, but I won't give away too many spoilers. Get the book, folks! You won't be disappointed.

But we don't have a verbatim account of Hutchinson's evidence, merely a summary. He might have mentioned the rain, for all we know, but this fact was omitted as not being relevant to the suspect description.

Sam Flynn
05-11-2017, 11:33 AM
But we don't have a verbatim account of Hutchinson's evidence, merely a summary. He might have mentioned the rain, for all we know, but this fact was omitted as not being relevant to the suspect description.Given the sheer amount of detail Hutchinson apparently recalled, perhaps Badham ran out of paper before they got to the bit about the weather ;)

John G
05-11-2017, 11:37 AM
Given the sheer amount of detail Hutchinson apparently recalled, perhaps Badham ran out of paper before they got to the bit about the weather ;)

Possibly!

Joshua Rogan
05-11-2017, 12:16 PM
A very dry fish, at that. Hutchinson never once mentions the rain, but has plenty to say about spats, red gemstones, red hankies, turned-up moustaches, gold watch-chains, astrakhan collars, trews, shirts and ties, hats (turned down in middle), mysterious parcels with straps... and yer man doing his soft-shoe shuffle through Spitalfields in his bonny button boots.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

PS: I got the nugget about Hutch's not mentioning the rain from Stephen Senise's book. The "soft-shoe shuffle" reference is apposite in this context, too, but I won't give away too many spoilers. Get the book, folks! You won't be disappointed.

How many other witnesses mentioned the rain that night?

Sam Flynn
05-11-2017, 12:53 PM
How many other witnesses mentioned the rain that night?Mrs Cox mentions it raining at 1:00, when she returned home to warm up for a while, and it was raining harder still when she went out again around 3:00; and the weather reports for London would seem to back her up. During this period, Hutchinson apears to have been standing around in the open for the best part of 45 minutes, to which we must add the time of his having "tailed" Kelly and Astrakhan before they reached Miller's Court. He must have been pretty wet, to put it mildly, to say nothing of the extra moisture from perspiration (and rain?) that would have accumulated about his person on his long walk from Romford.

Abby Normal
05-11-2017, 12:57 PM
How many other witnesses mentioned the rain that night?

a better question would be-how many other witnesses that night, or in the whole case, mention the amount of detail that hutch did.

Joshua Rogan
05-11-2017, 01:32 PM
Mrs Cox mentions it raining at 1:00, when she returned home to warm up for a while, and it was raining harder still when she went out again around 3:00; and the weather reports for London would seem to back her up. During this period, Hutchinson apears to have been standing around in the open for the best part of 45 minutes, to which we must add the time of his having "tailed" Kelly and Astrakhan before they reached Miller's Court. He must have been pretty wet, to put it mildly, to say nothing of the extra moisture from perspiration (and rain?) that would have accumulated about his person on his long walk from Romford.

Yes, I believe she's the only one that mentioned the rain, but that was only in court, not in her police statement. Both Liz Prater and Sarah Lewis are silent on the matter. So it seems a little harsh to hold Hutch's own silence on that point against him.

Sam Flynn
05-11-2017, 01:47 PM
Yes, I believe she's the only one that mentioned the rain, but that was only in court, not in her police statement. So it seems a little harsh to hold Hutch's own silence on that point against him.
But he's so detailed about everything else, and illustrates his narrative with all kinds of information.Both Liz Prater and Sarah Lewis are silent on the matterYes, but their statements are very short. Hutchinson's goes on, and on, and on.

Varqm
05-11-2017, 02:49 PM
"Seems to me that Hutchinson came in after Sarah had been on the stand"
Michael Richards

That also to me go against Hutchinson's credibility since he had a few hours,an opportunity,to learn what was said in the inquest,adding the fact the murders was big news.But we do not know how far and quick the inquest info spread.The police probably knew.

Wickerman
05-11-2017, 02:58 PM
I don't believe that he knew her that well, certainly not for three years, and certainly not to have given her a "few shillings" from time to time. I believe he had to come up with the "familiarity" bit as a means to explain his completely OTT interest in what Kelly and Astrakhan got up to. ("Oh, yeah, we were really, really good friends. I've known her since I was 18, and I used to help her out by sharing a fair chunk of my wages with her whenever she was desperate. That's how good a friend I was and that's why I followed her so closely the other night, and made sure I gave the geezer a good once-over.")

Hi Gareth.
But isn't it true that the above is based largely on your belief that "Topping" was Hutchinson?
Given that we cannot determine this possibility, how would your view (above) change if it turned out that Hutchinson was older, and someone else entirely?

Wickerman
05-11-2017, 03:11 PM
I'm not pretending anything, Jon, and I'm certainly not about to pretend that there's nothing suspicious about Hutchinson's statement; it's hugely suspicous. Its details, and the sheer level of detail it contains, are so self-evidently improbable that I honestly can't see how one could argue to the contrary.

Ok, so you know it is quite possible then, the fact you are reluctant to accept it is another matter. Suffice to say, the detail offered by Hutchinson is unique, but not impossible.

By the way, I bought Stephen Senise's recently-published book Jewbaiter last night, and I'm halfway through it. His exposition of the flaws in Hutchinson's account, to say nothing of the apparent echoes/borrowings from then-current (and not-so-recent) press reports, is quite fascinating. The fact that Senise's book is so very well written is an added bonus. Wholeheartedly recommended.

Senise was able to expose flaws not found by Phil Sugden, really?

Wickerman
05-11-2017, 03:30 PM
How many other witnesses mentioned the rain that night?

This being England, I'd expect mention to be made, if it wasn't raining.

c.d.
05-11-2017, 03:34 PM
Certainly Hutchinson could not have been the first witness that Abberline ever questioned. And I seriously doubt that Abberline would not have picked up on the extraordinary detail in Hutch's statement. I suppose that it could be argued that he was willing to overlook it as being suspicious in and of itself thinking that this might be the lead that would break the case. However, it would seem that at some point Hutchinson got a clean bill of health as far as possible involvement in Kelly's murder his level of detail recall notwithstanding.

And again, this was not Abberline acting in a vacuum but related to everyone at Scotland Yard involved with Hutchinson.

c.d.

P.S. I have often wondered if a suspicious Abberline said something like damn George that is a remarkable ability that you have there to remember so much detail and Hutch replying that it was a hobby with him or some such thing. Abberline says do you think you could turn your back and describe Sergeant so and so to me? And Hutch giving him a spot on description. Just a thought.

Wickerman
05-11-2017, 03:40 PM
"Seems to me that Hutchinson came in after Sarah had been on the stand"
Michael Richards

That also to me go against Hutchinson's credibility since he had a few hours,an opportunity,to learn what was said in the inquest,adding the fact the murders was big news.But we do not know how far and quick the inquest info spread.The police probably knew.

Given that the time the inquest terminated was not published I am surprised to read you say Hutch "had a few hours", to learn what was said.
There is no way anyone can know that, he may have had as little as 30 minutes.

Sarah Lewis is one witness who is never quoted in the press, she never gave an interview either before the inquest, or after. This suggests Lewis was not a gossiper like other women might be.
So, on what grounds are we supposed to believe Hutchinson obtained his information?

Wickerman
05-11-2017, 03:50 PM
P.S. I have often wondered if a suspicious Abberline said something like damn George that is a remarkable ability that you have there to remember so much detail and Hutch replying that it was a hobby with him or some such thing. Abberline says do you think you could turn your back and describe Sergeant so and so to me? And Hutch giving him a spot on description. Just a thought.

Hutchinson was a Groom, so we are told.

Among the skills you need to be a good Groom, we read:

You’ll need:

- good observational skills
- patience
- good communication skills
- competence in riding
https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/horse-groom

A Groom is also responsible for the presentation of the horse at shows - every little detail....

Abby Normal
05-11-2017, 05:02 PM
Hutchinson was a Groom, so we are told.

Among the skills you need to be a good Groom, we read:

You’ll need:

- good observational skills
- patience
- good communication skills
- competence in riding
https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/horse-groom

A Groom is also responsible for the presentation of the horse at shows - every little detail....

They're also known to be excellent shite slingers

Wickerman
05-11-2017, 05:12 PM
Good one :lol:

Varqm
05-11-2017, 06:46 PM
Given that the time the inquest terminated was not published I am surprised to read you say Hutch "had a few hours", to learn what was said.
There is no way anyone can know that, he may have had as little as 30 minutes.

Sarah Lewis is one witness who is never quoted in the press, she never gave an interview either before the inquest, or after. This suggests Lewis was not a gossiper like other women might be.
So, on what grounds are we supposed to believe Hutchinson obtained his information?

I really don't know.The inquest started in the morning.How long did the inquest last?Judging from the questions asked from the witnesses not long.Let' s say 3-4 hours.Let's say it started at 11:00 A.M -could be earlier, finished,generously, at 3:00 PM? 4:00 PM?.You don't know either, I'm estimating.
You don't know if Hutchinson heard,from any source,either.But he had an opportunity.
But the bigger point is we do not know for "sure" if Hutchinson was lying or not -you could argue that all decade long, even though I think it is has some quality of being made up.
But if somebody says something it is true?.Somebody said the earth is flat.
We have to go outside of the testimony to help determine if Hutchinson is lying or not ,not necessarily the content of his testimony.
As I've said in previous posts,credibility,comparing to Sarah Lewis,who testified matter-of-factly,Hutch omitting Sarah in his testimony,Sarah was in the inquest,Hutch had an opportunity to hear what was said in the inquest and the police's subsequent actions on the witnesses they chose or omission of Hutchinson (potentially the biggest witness) on their subsequent writings/memoirs - as I've said in previous posts.

Wickerman
05-11-2017, 07:31 PM
I really don't know.The inquest started in the morning.How long did the inquest last?Judging from the questions asked from the witnesses not long.Let' s say 3-4 hours.Let's say it started at 11:00 A.M -could be earlier, finished,generously, at 3:00 PM? 4:00 PM?.You don't know either, I'm estimating.
You don't know if Hutchinson heard,from any source,either.But he had an opportunity.
But the bigger point is we do not know for "sure" if Hutchinson was lying or not -you could argue that all decade long, even though I think it is has some quality of being made up.
But if somebody says something it is true?.Somebody said the earth is flat.
We have to go outside of the testimony to help determine if Hutchinson is lying or not ,not necessarily the content of his testimony.
As I've said in previous posts,credibility,comparing to Sarah Lewis,who testified matter-of-factly,Hutch omitting Sarah in his testimony,Sarah was in the inquest,Hutch had an opportunity to hear what was said in the inquest and the police's subsequent actions on the witnesses they chose or omission of Hutchinson (potentially the biggest witness) on their subsequent writings/memoirs - as I've said in previous posts.

Look at what you wrote.

You admit "we do not know", correct. Yet you offer a theory.
Theories come from evidence, not from speculation.
All you have is speculation, there is no evidence for your theory.

You ask: "if somebody says something, it is true?".
What someone said is part of the historical record, that is why it matters.

I use what is regarded as evidence, whether it is in police documents, or newspapers. What we read is part of the historical record.
As opposed to the accusations against Hutchinson which are modern speculations not supported by any evidence.

That, is the difference.

Varqm
05-11-2017, 08:25 PM
Look at what you wrote.

You admit "we do not know", correct. Yet you offer a theory.
Theories come from evidence, not from speculation.
All you have is speculation, there is no evidence for your theory.

You ask: "if somebody says something, it is true?".
What someone said is part of the historical record, that is why it matters.

I use what is regarded as evidence, whether it is in police documents, or newspapers. What we read is part of the historical record.
As opposed to the accusations against Hutchinson which are modern speculations not supported by any evidence.

That, is the difference.

It's clear in the post that you and I do not know,not even Abberline (as stated in my previous posts).But your reason for believing Hutchinson is "just because" - with no reason,no argument except Hutch said it.That's silly.You believe in everything people say? I own the London Bridge.I swear,I'll sell it to you.
Use your common sense.We are dealing with people and circumstances.I have stated my reasons for my belief/reasoning in previous posts.

Joshua Rogan
05-12-2017, 02:00 AM
I really don't know.The inquest started in the morning.How long did the inquest last?Judging from the questions asked from the witnesses not long.Let' s say 3-4 hours.Let's say it started at 11:00 A.M -could be earlier, finished,generously, at 3:00 PM? 4:00 PM?.You don't know either, I'm estimating.
You don't know if Hutchinson heard,from any source,either.But he had an opportunity.

For info....The inquest did officially open at about 11am, but it wasn't until around noon that the first witness took the stand.

Michael W Richards
05-12-2017, 02:44 AM
I think the best one can say about old Hutch is that it is very suspicious that someone came forward and claimed the role of Sarah Lewis's lurking man. Did he know someone had seen him, did he know someone had seen someone? The lurking man is either a friend looking out for her, a stalker or peeper, or a lookout for someone in the room, or a lookout for someone tracking the man in the room, or for Mary. According to his statement, that man in the room would be the lavishly appointed Astrakan Man.

Why is it then that Blotchy doesn't come forward? He could clear suspicions by claiming he had left silently and unseen sometime before that lurking man sighting, and then Hutch brings in Astrakan Man to redirect the attention for him. He could have come in Tuesday morning after reading about Hutch. And why does someone matching Blotchys description run from a policeman after being pointed out by a bystander as someone matching Blotchys description?

Personally, I think someone wanted to know when that room, and court, were silent. I think Wideawake was to be the one who watched for him. I'm not sure Hutch was Wideawake though. I think that the pardon offer reflects a belief that more than one person orchestrated this murder, which would by definition rule out a lone killer.

andy1867
05-12-2017, 08:44 AM
If, as someone posted previously, the person Hutchinson saw did seem more "Affluent" than the usual customer such as Kelly would attract, maybe this could explain his detailed description, and also his loitering in the vicinity.
As he did not have sixpence to lend TO Mary Kelly, maybe he thought he would be in a position to lend a sixpence OFF Mary Kelly, if Mr "Affluent" had paid more than the usual going rate

Sam Flynn
05-12-2017, 11:02 AM
Hutchinson was a Groom, so we are told.

Among the skills you need to be a good Groom, we read:

You’ll need:

- good observational skills
- patience
- good communication skills
- competence in riding
https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/horse-groom

A Groom is also responsible for the presentation of the horse at shows - every little detail....Yes, it's a well-known fact that those among us with the most acute perception and retentive memories are tailor-made for a career in combing animal hair.

Sam Flynn
05-12-2017, 11:07 AM
Certainly Hutchinson could not have been the first witness that Abberline ever questioned. And I seriously doubt that Abberline would not have picked up on the extraordinary detail in Hutch's statement.Sometimes, an experienced detective's desperation for leads can skew their judgment. Perhaps George Hutchinson's statement was to Abberline what the "Wearside Jack" tape and letters were to George Oldfield.

Abby Normal
05-12-2017, 11:24 AM
Sometimes, an experienced detective's desperation for leads can skew their judgment. Perhaps George Hutchinson's statement was to Abberline what the "Wearside Jack" tape and letters were to George Oldfield.

I'm sure there was a dose of wishful thinking there.

as ive mentioned before, shortly after Abberline heard about waiting man via sarah lewis at the inquest, in walks the waiting man to corroborate.

ive often felt this was one of the main reasons abberline initially believed him.

Sam Flynn
05-12-2017, 11:40 AM
I'm sure there was a dose of wishful thinking there.
I don't set too much store in the story that Abberline exclaimed "You've got Jack the Ripper at last" when Godley arrested Klosowski, but - if true - it shows just how eager Abberline was to close the case, even a decade and a half after the event.

Varqm
05-12-2017, 11:55 AM
Where is it that "establishes" that Hutchinson "actually" went to Romford,that he "actually" was Mary Kelly's friend,etc.

Varqm
05-12-2017, 12:31 PM
For info....The inquest did officially open at about 11am, but it wasn't until around noon that the first witness took the stand.

Thanks.

Varqm
05-12-2017, 12:55 PM
"I suppose that it could be argued that he was willing to overlook it as being suspicious in and of itself thinking that this might be the lead that would break the case." CD

Good point.There was some chance it was true.The police needed leads.They went with him while,sensibly,checking out his story.

Wickerman
05-12-2017, 02:59 PM
It's clear in the post that you and I do not know,not even Abberline (as stated in my previous posts).But your reason for believing Hutchinson is "just because" - with no reason,no argument except Hutch said it.That's silly.

I don't need a reason.
Abberline accepted his story, he accepted his credibility.
Abberline knew more about what Hutchinson told him than we do.
We are drawing conclusions from what is in the statement, but Hutch was later interrogated by Abberline, no record of this interrogation has survived.

You believe in everything people say? I own the London Bridge.I swear,I'll sell it to you.
Use your common sense.We are dealing with people and circumstances.I have stated my reasons for my belief/reasoning in previous posts.

You bought the London Bridge? - I'm not surprised.

When anyone makes a statement to police, it is expected to be true.
Why do you think Mrs Maxwell received such a grilling over the time she said she saw Mary Kelly?
It makes no sense whatsoever to arbitrarily choose to believe one statement, but not another, unless you have some factual evidence to discredit the witness.
That, is what you are doing.

You need a factual reason to dismiss the claims of a witness, that or a conflicting statement which contests what is being claimed.

Cherry picking what suits your theory is what kids do.

c.d.
05-12-2017, 03:09 PM
Sometimes, an experienced detective's desperation for leads can skew their judgment. Perhaps George Hutchinson's statement was to Abberline what the "Wearside Jack" tape and letters were to George Oldfield.

Hello Sam,

That is certainly possible but Abberline wasn't acting in a vacuum. Are we to believe that not one single person involved with Hutch said damn that just has to be a made up story? It would seem that somehow the police got over the hurdle of the extraordinary detail in his story at least initially.

c.d.

Abby Normal
05-12-2017, 03:24 PM
Hello Sam,

That is certainly possible but Abberline wasn't acting in a vacuum. Are we to believe that not one single person involved with Hutch said damn that just has to be a made up story? It would seem that somehow the police got over the hurdle of the extraordinary detail in his story at least initially.

c.d.

Because moments after they heard Sarah Lewis talk about waiting man, in walks waiting man, corroborating her story and his, and also providing info that initially at least that described a good suspect and therefore a good witness. Himself.

And it seems it only took a day or so for them to figure out he was full of it.

Sam Flynn
05-12-2017, 03:35 PM
That is certainly possible but Abberline wasn't acting in a vacuum. Are we to believe that not one single person involved with Hutch said damn that just has to be a made up story?
There were detectives, and other experts, on the Yorkshire Ripper case who weren't taken in by the "Wearside Jack" hoaxes, but that didn't prevent the senior detective in charge of the investigation from taking the bait. It could well be that this state of affairs resulted in Peter Sutcliffe's taking at least three more victims.

Wickerman
05-12-2017, 03:38 PM
I think the best one can say about old Hutch is that it is very suspicious that someone came forward and claimed the role of Sarah Lewis's lurking man. Did he know someone had seen him, did he know someone had seen someone?

If, as others have tried to suggest, Hutchinson obtained (somehow), the story as given by Sarah Lewis, then he also KNEW, that the lurker was described as "not tall, stout, with a black wideawake hat".

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/17/af/95/17af95862c5fad83d18ab876ae69e567.jpg

You seriously think THAT, is distinctive enough to make Hutchinson come forward?
Are you serious?
(the pic is a joke, by the way)

The irony of this weak argument is, that IF Hutchinson did somehow get hold of Lewis's story, then he also KNEW he had no need to come forward.
The description she gave could fit thousands; no age, no height, no detail of clothing, no facial details like moustache, beard, or hair colour - nothing.
He can walk away scot free.


Why is it then that Blotchy doesn't come forward?

Was he married?, maybe had a criminal record, was wanted for some other offense?
It isn't difficult to come up with a reason.

c.d.
05-12-2017, 03:47 PM
Hello Sam,

I am still not sure of the point that is being made here. Could Hutchinson have been Mary's killer and/or the Ripper? Yes, without a doubt but then so could every single person the police questioned. It would appear that the police cleared him attention to detail and all. Unless we have some hard evidence that the police were in fact fooled I for one have to put my faith in the judgment of the police.

c.d.

Abby Normal
05-12-2017, 04:04 PM
Hello Sam,

I am still not sure of the point that is being made here. Could Hutchinson have been Mary's killer and/or the Ripper? Yes, without a doubt but then so could every single person the police questioned. It would appear that the police cleared him attention to detail and all. Unless we have some hard evidence that the police were in fact fooled I for one have to put my faith in the judgment of the police.

c.d.

I wouldn't do that if I were you

Wickerman
05-12-2017, 04:21 PM
And it seems it only took a day or so for them to figure out he was full of it.

:)
Ok Abby, we both know the police never made any such claim.

But we also know the Echo, on Nov. 19th, wrote that the police were still on the story.
"Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson..."

I didn't quote the whole paragraph as I'm sure you are familiar with it.

Then, three weeks later on Dec. 6th, we read of the arrest of Joseph Isaacs, where Abberline's words are mention:
"It is further stated that the inspector was heard to say to one of his subordinates: "Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last."

Then, on Dec. 8th, concerning the arrest of Isaacs, we read.

".....whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."

The Hutchinson suspect looks to be front and centre for almost a month.
And that's the historical record speaking, it will never change.

c.d.
05-12-2017, 04:24 PM
I wouldn't do that if I were you

Hello Abby,

Well isn't that the default position until it can be shown definitively that the police were wrong?

c.d.

Abby Normal
05-12-2017, 04:57 PM
:)
Ok Abby, we both know the police never made any such claim.

But we also know the Echo, on Nov. 19th, wrote that the police were still on the story.
"Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson..."

I didn't quote the whole paragraph as I'm sure you are familiar with it.

Then, three weeks later on Dec. 6th, we read of the arrest of Joseph Isaacs, where Abberline's words are mention:
"It is further stated that the inspector was heard to say to one of his subordinates: "Keep this quiet; we have got the right man at last."

Then, on Dec. 8th, concerning the arrest of Isaacs, we read.

".....whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."

The Hutchinson suspect looks to be front and centre for almost a month.
And that's the historical record speaking, it will never change.

Well of course there's the statement in the paper that his story was discounted, and a couple of nebulous press stories involving isaacs is hardly front and center.

Abby Normal
05-12-2017, 04:59 PM
Hello Abby,

Well isn't that the default position until it can be shown definitively that the police were wrong?

c.d.

Wrong about what?

c.d.
05-12-2017, 05:02 PM
Wrong about what?

Their apparent conclusion that he was not involved in Mary's killing.

c.d.

Abby Normal
05-12-2017, 05:04 PM
Their apparent conclusion that he was not involved in Mary's killing.

c.d.

I don't think they even considered it.

harry
05-12-2017, 06:28 PM
Hutchinson must have seen Sarah Lewis,the question is, would he have recognised her at a later date.If the answer was yes,then of course it would occur to him that she might also,on sight,at a later date,recognise him.Maybe this was a motivation,after three days of indecision,to come forward.

Wickerman
05-12-2017, 06:32 PM
All the more reason for Hutchinson to hi-tail it out of town. Not, walk in the front door of the police station.

harry
05-12-2017, 06:35 PM
There is only one policeman,Aberline,who comments on the likelihood of Hutchinson telling the truth,and his is an opinion,not a decision accompanied by facts.

Wickerman
05-12-2017, 06:38 PM
Well of course there's the statement in the paper that his story was discounted, and a couple of nebulous press stories involving isaacs is hardly front and center.

The claim of "discredited" was on the 15th, but the police were still looking for Astrachan on the 19th (as in my earlier post).
The hunt for Isaacs was two-fold.
- Mary Cusins identified him as the tenant who fled on the morning of the murder.
- The police believed he may have been responsible for the attack on Annie Farmer on Nov. 21st.
So yes, Isaacs was their only named suspect in these murders.

harry
05-12-2017, 06:45 PM
Not at all.Any sudden departure could be reported,especially of someone who had been associated with Kelly.

Wickerman
05-12-2017, 07:23 PM
There is only one policeman,Aberline,who comments on the likelihood of Hutchinson telling the truth,and his is an opinion,not a decision accompanied by facts.

It seems like the score is 1-0 then, unless you can come up with an official opinion against Hutchinson?

Check-mate?

Wickerman
05-12-2017, 07:25 PM
Not at all.Any sudden departure could be reported,especially of someone who had been associated with Kelly.

Who is going to report him?
People came and went on a regular basis, that was normal.

harry
05-13-2017, 02:12 AM
Jon.
An opinion is neither positive or negative.It doesn't prove Hutchinson's truthfulness,or untruthfulness.Nothing for me to come up with.The papers were not convinced,and no,they are not official,but you place reliance on them at times.

Who is going to report him?
Mary Cusins reported on Isaacs,according to you.Why wouldn't someone at the Victoria home report on Hutchinson? What would stop the police from checking for absconders there? It w as not normal times,goings would attract interest.

There are no statistics I know of that proves a murderer would preferable flee than stay put,even if facing suspicion,and a person could hang just as easily for one or several crimes.

Wickerman
05-13-2017, 04:39 AM
Jon.
An opinion is neither positive or negative.It doesn't prove Hutchinson's truthfulness,or untruthfulness.Nothing for me to come up with.The papers were not convinced,and no,they are not official,but you place reliance on them at times.

"Opinion" is a sticky subject.
In a court of law, as you know, professional opinion is accepted and often required, but the opinion of the layperson is not.
Abberline was a professional, so his opinion stands heads & shoulders above that of anyone else who is not a professional.
Who, of those in a professional capacity, thought to criticize Hutchinson or dismiss his story?
No-one!

As for the papers, not all of them criticized Hutchinson.
The tabloid press look for controversy, creating volatile headlines sells newspapers. The Star needs to sell their paper it is the new kid on the block, so to speak, and had to make money fast.
The Echo was more balanced, at least they were aware of the two principal suspects in the case.
The Star tried to promote the idea that if the police are not 100% behind Hutchinson then it is because they doubt his story. This was an intentionally naive interpretation presented to sell their paper as opposed to any other.

Who is going to report him?
Mary Cusins reported on Isaacs,according to you.Why wouldn't someone at the Victoria home report on Hutchinson? What would stop the police from checking for absconders there? It w as not normal times,goings would attract interest.

First of all, Mary Cusins didn't go report Isaacs, it was the police who came to her door as part of their house-to-house investigation on the weekend after the murder. They canvased hundreds of houses & tenancies in and around Dorset St. Cusins, being the deputy of the lodging-house, was naturally asked about all her boarders. This was when she would have told them of a missing lodger.

Here is a piece concerning this house-to-house investigation.

During the whole of yesterday Sergeant Thicke, with other officers, was busily engaged in writing down the names, statements, and full particulars of persons staying at the various lodging-houses in Dorset-street. That this was no easy task will be imagined when it is known that in one house alone there are upwards of 260 persons, and that several houses accommodate over 200.
Times, 12 Nov.

At the Victoria Home, residents come and go all the time, the police are not conducting another house-to-house after the inquest. Your theory requires someone keeping tabs on anyone who knew Mary Kelly - who would do this, and for what reason?
There were thousands of tenants crammed into these streets, who is expected to keep an eye on them all, and who leaves, and when?
It's just not worthy for consideration.

If Hutchinson had any reason to believe Sarah Lewis could recognise him, then he can quite safely leave the district unnoticed.
Instead, he comes forward and creates a huge furor by claiming to see Mary Kelly just before her murder?
There is just no practical reason for him to do this if he is somehow involved. Only someone who is not involved has nothing to fear.

Sam Flynn
05-13-2017, 05:03 AM
Only someone who is not involved has nothing to fear.Indeed, Jon, and it's possible that he was uninvolved to the extent of not being there at all.

Abby Normal
05-13-2017, 05:11 AM
"Opinion" is a sticky subject.
In a court of law, as you know, professional opinion is accepted and often required, but the opinion of the layperson is not.
Abberline was a professional, so his opinion stands heads & shoulders above that of anyone else who is not a professional.
Who, of those in a professional capacity, thought to criticize Hutchinson or dismiss his story?
No-one!

As for the papers, not all of them criticized Hutchinson.
The tabloid press look for controversy, creating volatile headlines sells newspapers. The Star needs to sell their paper it is the new kid on the block, so to speak, and had to make money fast.
The Echo was more balanced, at least they were aware of the two principal suspects in the case.
The Star tried to promote the idea that if the police are not 100% behind Hutchinson then it is because they doubt his story. This was an intentionally naive interpretation presented to sell their paper as opposed to any other.



First of all, Mary Cusins didn't go report Isaacs, it was the police who came to her door as part of their house-to-house investigation on the weekend after the murder. They canvased hundreds of houses & tenancies in and around Dorset St. Cusins, being the deputy of the lodging-house, was naturally asked about all her boarders. This was when she would have told them of a missing lodger.

Here is a piece concerning this house-to-house investigation.

During the whole of yesterday Sergeant Thicke, with other officers, was busily engaged in writing down the names, statements, and full particulars of persons staying at the various lodging-houses in Dorset-street. That this was no easy task will be imagined when it is known that in one house alone there are upwards of 260 persons, and that several houses accommodate over 200.
Times, 12 Nov.

At the Victoria Home, residents come and go all the time, the police are not conducting another house-to-house after the inquest. Your theory requires someone keeping tabs on anyone who knew Mary Kelly - who would do this, and for what reason?
There were thousands of tenants crammed into these streets, who is expected to keep an eye on them all, and who leaves, and when?
It's just not worthy for consideration.

If Hutchinson had any reason to believe Sarah Lewis could recognise him, then he can quite safely leave the district unnoticed.
Instead, he comes forward and creates a huge furor by claiming to see Mary Kelly just before her murder?
There is just no practical reason for him to do this if he is somehow involved. Only someone who is not involved has nothing to fear.

Hi wick generally I agree with your last paragraph. However, I've seen enough true crime stories, where I am amazed how many guilty people come forward when the police don't even have them on there radar. It happens, for whatever reason, but most of the time, when they think that they might already be on the police radar, so better to come forward as a witness, than to be found as a suspect.

Hutch was probably worried that Sarah Lewis might have at the worst know his name and the least recognize him.


Ok gonna switch things up on you. Since blotchy did not come forward, and was the last credible suspect seen entering her apartment with her, I would imagine you hold him high on the list, no?

Wickerman
05-13-2017, 05:44 AM
Indeed, Jon, and it's possible that he was uninvolved to the extent of not being there at all.

Hi Gareth.
I'll grant you it's possible.

The caveat I have in taking this view is that I can't see how a person like Hutch could obtain the details of Sarah Lewis's story.

The room where the inquest was held was not much larger than the living room of a house. With few members of the public present, he would easily have been seen. Everyone in this small room is in full view of the police, and Abberline himself.
And, if outside, how would he know who she was, or what she said, or in fact what anyone said?

The whole scenario is counter intuitive. It strains credibility.
It has all the earmarks of a desperate, somewhat illogical, attempt to maintain this negative view of Hutchinson.

Hutch has to learn that Lewis also saw a couple enter the court in view of the lurker, and so far there is no viable way to explain how he could do this, or even why, considering the argument is supposed to be that he wasn't even there at all.

Michael W Richards
05-13-2017, 08:59 AM
Hi Gareth.
I'll grant you it's possible.

The caveat I have in taking this view is that I can't see how a person like Hutch could obtain the details of Sarah Lewis's story.

The room where the inquest was held was not much larger than the living room of a house. With few members of the public present, he would easily have been seen. Everyone in this small room is in full view of the police, and Abberline himself.
And, if outside, how would he know who she was, or what she said, or in fact what anyone said?

The whole scenario is counter intuitive. It strains credibility.
It has all the earmarks of a desperate, somewhat illogical, attempt to maintain this negative view of Hutchinson.

Hutch has to learn that Lewis also saw a couple enter the court in view of the lurker, and so far there is no viable way to explain how he could do this, or even why, considering the argument is supposed to be that he wasn't even there at all.

I don't see why you continue to dismiss the fact that the Lewis story was taken Friday afternoon, and Hutch doesn't come in until after 5pm on Monday. He didn't have to hear about it from the Inquest, it was surely the talk on the streets all weekend long. It strains credulity that he wouldn't have heard the stories, rather than the reverse. Ill bet Sarah and Caroline couldn't tell enough people that weekend about their brush with fame and the Ripper cases.

Wickerman
05-13-2017, 09:38 AM
.


Ok gonna switch things up on you. Since blotchy did not come forward, and was the last credible suspect seen entering her apartment with her, I would imagine you hold him high on the list, no?

Hi Abby.

Well, I'll first explain the problem I have with Blotchy as a suspect.

He enters room 13 about 11:45 pm Thursday night, Kelly begins to sing.
She is still heard singing around 12:30. Then also around 1:00 according to Cox, but Prater says all was quiet around 1:20?, and there was no light coming from room 13.

So, if Kelly had stopped singing just after 1:00, then she was either dead, asleep, or out on the street.
By all accounts the fire in the grate was the principal means of light for the mutilations (the candle was not consumed), so as Prater said there was no light then that means Kelly was not dead, but either asleep or out.

If she was not dead, then was she asleep?
If she was asleep, then what crime has Blotchy committed?
If she was back out on the street, then Blotchy is off the hook.

Did Blotchy come back later?
I take that as an attempt to try incriminate Blotchy at any cost. The answer is of course 'yes, but there is nothing to indicate this'.

I like to theorize on what the evidence suggests, not what can be created to fit the theory.

So, with all things considered, I take Blotchy as a suspect a little unlikely. I think what we understand about the case tends to speak against it.

I understand that you prefer Blotchy as a suspect, but in doing so you reject Hutchinson's Astrachan, and I believe you also reject Mrs Kennedy's statement of seeing Kelly with the Britannia-man (ie; the Bethnal Green Botherer), at around 3:00 am.
It's easy to dismiss any witness that speaks against a preferred theory, what I don't understand is why.

We don't have to like a witness to believe what he/she says.

Wickerman
05-13-2017, 09:46 AM
I don't see why you continue to dismiss the fact that the Lewis story was taken Friday afternoon, and Hutch doesn't come in until after 5pm on Monday. He didn't have to hear about it from the Inquest, it was surely the talk on the streets all weekend long. It strains credulity that he wouldn't have heard the stories, rather than the reverse. Ill bet Sarah and Caroline couldn't tell enough people that weekend about their brush with fame and the Ripper cases.

Michael.

The press where salivating at the mouth for any hint of gossip on what happened that Friday morning.
There's plenty to choose from, but not from Lewis.
Are you really suggesting the streets were alive with rumors of her story yet, not one newspaper chose to print it?

Sarah Lewis is not quoted as a source, and her story is not given at any time before the inquest on Monday - meaning, Lewis didn't talk to anyone.

Sam Flynn
05-13-2017, 09:52 AM
The caveat I have in taking this view is that I can't see how a person like Hutch could obtain the details of Sarah Lewis's story.
I don't think he'd have needed to know the details of Lewis's story - or more specifically, that part of her story where she saw Mr Wideawake opposite Miller's Court, which was as yet unreported in the newspapers. The rest of her story, as "Mrs Kennedy", was widely published quite early on, of course. It was also widely reported that Mary Kelly had been seen with a respectably-dressed man, and that the two had gone together into Kelly's lodgings.

If Hutchinson wanted to claim that he'd followed them and watched them go into Kelly's room, his narrative would naturally place him in Dorset Street, at or opposite the entrance to Miller's Court, at the relevant time. In other words he'd have to have been there or thereabouts, even in fantasy; and, if so, he inadvertently "corroborated" Lewis's story, without ever having been there at all, and without necessarily having learned about that part of Lewis's testimony.

Sam Flynn
05-13-2017, 10:04 AM
Sarah Lewis is not quoted as a source, and her story is not given at any time before the inquest on Monday - meaning, Lewis didn't talk to anyone.
I think she most certainly did, most notably in the form of "Mrs Kennedy", who was staying with her relatives in Miller's Court, opposite the deceased! Who else could that have been but Sarah Lewis?

Aside from "Mrs Kennedy", there were instances of what looks very much like versions of Lewis's account attributed to other sources as early as the 10th November, so her story was "out there" all right.

Wickerman
05-13-2017, 10:39 AM
I think she most certainly did, most notably in the form of "Mrs Kennedy", who was staying with her relatives in Miller's Court, opposite the deceased! Who else could that have been but Sarah Lewis?

Aside from "Mrs Kennedy", there were instances of what looks very much like versions of Lewis's account attributed to other sources as early as the 10th November, so her story was "out there" all right.

Mrs Kennedy did not see a loiterer, and it is not likely she would given that she didn't leave the corner of Dorset St. until after 3:00 am, Hutchinson had gone by then.
Sarah Lewis's story takes place around 2:30 am, Kennedy's began at 3:00 am.

Sarah Lewis was by her own words visiting a friend in Millers Court, while Mrs Kennedy lived there.

Quote:
"On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour."

Gareth, Lewis and Kennedy are not the same woman.

Sam Flynn
05-13-2017, 10:57 AM
Mrs Kennedy did not see a loiterer, and it is not likely she would given that she didn't leave the corner of Dorset St. until after 3:00 am, Hutchinson had gone by then.
Sarah Lewis's story takes place around 2:30 am, Kennedy's began at 3:00 am.

Sarah Lewis was by her own words visiting a friend in Millers Court, while Mrs Kennedy lived there.

Quote:
"On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour."

Gareth, Lewis and Kennedy are not the same woman.Sorry, Jon, but the Kennedy story is clearly a garbled account of Lewis's story. It is hugely unlikely that two different women, who had seen essentially the same goings-on in the small hours, happened to be staying with relatives directly opposite Kelly's room in Miller's Court.

Regardless, whether we call it the "Kennedy story", the "Lewis story", or the "story of an acquaintance of the deceased", the story is basically the same, and furthermore it was reported widely in the press on the 10th November. It is safe to assume that the same story, in various distorted forms, would have been circulating by word of mouth also.

Wickerman
05-13-2017, 12:58 PM
Sorry, Jon, but the Kennedy story is clearly a garbled account of Lewis's story. It is hugely unlikely that two different women, who had seen essentially the same goings-on in the small hours, happened to be staying with relatives directly opposite Kelly's room in Miller's Court.

How do you define "hugely"?, based on what?
It is an odd time for Lewis to leave her house at 2:00 ish in the morning to walk to Millers Court, but she may have left it that late knowing that her friend (Kennedy) was out until about that time in the morning.
Perhaps, that is when Kennedy finished work.
Lewis simply left it that late so she would arrive at her friends house when she got home from work - at least that is one possibility.

If Lewis had argued with her husband, and was upset, she might not want to go sit with her friends parents, she will wait until her friend gets home, then she can feel more comfortable. How unreasonable is that, and don't tell me it's unrealistic. Women prefer the company of their close friend when they are upset.

If we knew more about these women the answer will likely be a simple one.

Regardless, whether we call it the "Kennedy story", the "Lewis story", or the "story of an acquaintance of the deceased", the story is basically the same, and furthermore it was reported widely in the press on the 10th November. It is safe to assume that the same story, in various distorted forms, would have been circulating by word of mouth also.

Gareth, you are ignoring very pertinent details.

Sarah Lewis is not about to lie to the court, she did not tell them she lived in Millers Court, she lived in Great Pearl St., besides Lewis has been traced, her husband was not called Kennedy either.
The parents (the Gallaghers) of Mrs Kennedy explained that their daughter lived with them in Millers Court.

What makes you think that friends who clearly know each other (Lewis & Kennedy) couldn't hang around together on evenings?

It can't be more apparent that these two women were not the same.
The idea that they were the same was based on their Wednesday night escapades, and it was voiced years ago before we had sufficient press details about them both.
The situation has changed considerably.

Joshua Rogan
05-13-2017, 01:31 PM
It can't be more apparent that these two women were not the same.
The idea that they were the same was based on their Wednesday night escapades, and it was voiced years ago before we had sufficient press details about them both.
The situation has changed considerably.

Didn't Mrs Kennedy say that she was with her sister on the Wednesday when they met the strange man?

Sam Flynn
05-13-2017, 01:34 PM
How do you define "hugely"?, based on what?
Common sense. It is beyond belief that two different women are going to see the sorts of things that Kennedy/Lewis saw in the small hours of the morning and then BOTH end up staying with relatives in a room in poky little Miller's Court, just opposite Mary Kelly.

Either Lewis was Kennedy, or Kennedy nicked Lewis's story, or Lewis nicked bits of Kennedy's story and wove it into her own. Whatever, it's self-evidently the same story in all its essential details, albeit distorted by the press and/or the jungle grapevine.

Varqm
05-13-2017, 03:47 PM
Again.Where is it that "establishes" that Hutchinson "actually" went to Romford,that he "actually" was Mary Kelly's friend - a strong part of his testimony,which will validate part of his story,that gives his story some credibility,some truthfulness.
Otherwise, don't run away with the story that Hutchinson was there.
Something ,not blindly/naively believing in every person's word .Especially at a time when there was no law/punishment for being a false witness.

Sam Flynn
05-13-2017, 03:58 PM
Again.Where is it that "establishes" that Hutchinson "actually" ... was Mary Kelly's friend
Indeed. Hutchinson's claim that he'd known Kelly for three years needs a fair bit of explanation, given that we know she was based elsewhere in the East End in 1885.

Varqm
05-13-2017, 05:21 PM
Indeed. Hutchinson's claim that he'd known Kelly for three years needs a fair bit of explanation, given that we know she was based elsewhere in the East End in 1885.

Sarah Lewis's testimony on the other hand,that she was visiting Mrs. Keylers, can/could be verified due to the fact she was staying at Keyler's and was one of the residents told by the police not to leave Miller's court.She left late afternoon.
Hutchinson on the other hand followed Kelly - concern or whatever reason - because she was a friend.That they were friends cannot be established.

Wickerman
05-13-2017, 06:16 PM
Didn't Mrs Kennedy say that she was with her sister on the Wednesday when they met the strange man?

Indeed, Lewis said she was with her friend, while Kennedy said she was with her sister. Assuming the reporter didn't make the mistake.
This contradiction of detail helps neither argument.

Wickerman
05-13-2017, 06:34 PM
Common sense. It is beyond belief that two different women are going to see the sorts of things that Kennedy/Lewis saw in the small hours of the morning and then BOTH end up staying with relatives in a room in poky little Miller's Court, just opposite Mary Kelly.

They didn't see the same things.
Lewis saw a man and a woman at the corner of Dorset St. at 2:30, then a loiterer in Dorset St. watching another couple pass up the court.
Kennedy saw a man with two women (the 2nd being Kelly) at the corner of Dorset St. 30 minutes later, at 3:00 am, but did not see anyone else, no loiterer or couple.

In fudging the details Gareth you are trying to make two different stories sound the same.
This is your doing though, it is not what we read in print.

You have already said that Lewis's story was in the public domain on the weekend under the name of Kennedy. Yet, the pertinent details of her seeing a loiterer, and the couple pass up the court - essential to a deceptive (in your view) Hutchinson, are not part of Kennedy's story.
So, as I said before, how could he know?

Attention to detail Gareth, please, you're better than this.

Abby Normal
05-13-2017, 06:49 PM
Hi Abby.

Well, I'll first explain the problem I have with Blotchy as a suspect.

He enters room 13 about 11:45 pm Thursday night, Kelly begins to sing.
She is still heard singing around 12:30. Then also around 1:00 according to Cox, but Prater says all was quiet around 1:20?, and there was no light coming from room 13.

So, if Kelly had stopped singing just after 1:00, then she was either dead, asleep, or out on the street.
By all accounts the fire in the grate was the principal means of light for the mutilations (the candle was not consumed), so as Prater said there was no light then that means Kelly was not dead, but either asleep or out.

If she was not dead, then was she asleep?
If she was asleep, then what crime has Blotchy committed?
If she was back out on the street, then Blotchy is off the hook.

Did Blotchy come back later?
I take that as an attempt to try incriminate Blotchy at any cost. The answer is of course 'yes, but there is nothing to indicate this'.

I like to theorize on what the evidence suggests, not what can be created to fit the theory.

So, with all things considered, I take Blotchy as a suspect a little unlikely. I think what we understand about the case tends to speak against it.

I understand that you prefer Blotchy as a suspect, but in doing so you reject Hutchinson's Astrachan, and I believe you also reject Mrs Kennedy's statement of seeing Kelly with the Britannia-man (ie; the Bethnal Green Botherer), at around 3:00 am.
It's easy to dismiss any witness that speaks against a preferred theory, what I don't understand is why.

We don't have to like a witness to believe what he/she says.

It was either blotchy or hutch. It's better than 50/50 that it was one or the other. IMHO. I'll take those odds every time.

c.d.
05-13-2017, 07:12 PM
Hello Abby,

Do you believe that either Blotchy or Hutch was the Ripper or simply Mary's killer?

c.d.

harry
05-13-2017, 07:19 PM
Jon,
Aberline's opinion is not supported by evidence,therefor is of little value.He was a witness to a conversation,to claims made by Hutchinson.Those claims,as far as anyone can tell,were not substanciated by a successful police investigation.
The person as described by Hutchinson was not found,Kelly cannot be placed on the street at the time stated by Hutchinson.a trip to Romford cannot be confirmed.
Even his claim of standing in Dorset Street,is disbelieved by some,and all you can say is,"well it was Aberlines opinion,and it must have been so".

I didn't say the information on Isaacs was the result of someone approaching the police.By the same token as his (Isaac)departure was reported,so could the departure of Hutchinson,had he departed the Victoria Home.By police enquiries.

In an earlier post on this thread you claimed you were motivated by evidence,something you claimed was lacking in other posters.Well where is the evidence,supporting your claim, that Mary Kelly made three separate trips from her room that night.

c.d.
05-13-2017, 07:33 PM
Hello Harry,

Are you saying that we are to believe that Abberline, a veteran police officer who held the rank of Inspector, simply took the claims of a witness at face value without making any attempt to determine their validity? And that that approach was approved of by his superiors to whom he reported? And in this case it was a witness who claimed to know the deceased and by his admission was the last known person to see her alive.

c.d.

Abby Normal
05-13-2017, 07:41 PM
Hello Abby,

Do you believe that either Blotchy or Hutch was the Ripper or simply Mary's killer?

c.d.

I think they were both

harry
05-14-2017, 02:03 AM
c.d.
In all the years I have been posting here,reading posts,reading books,I have never seen any evidence that Hutchinson's claims were followed up,that his trip to Romford was confirmed or disproved,that A man was found to be real,that Hutchinson w as a friend and gave money to Kelly,that Hutchinson walked the streets from abot 3 to 5 am after spending about 45 minutes near where she lived.
Was efforts made?I do not know. Was it essential that some effort be made to prove Hutchinson's claims?I think so.So two observations.Efforts were made and proved fruitless,or none or insufficient efforts were made.None of which favours Hutchinson told the truth.
Mostly what I get thrown back is,Aberline's opinion should not be questioned,he was too good an officer to be fooled.Foolish arguments.He was as prone as anyone to make mistakes.
I do not know,does anyone,what his superiors thought.Perhaps they too were fooled by Aberline's opinion.
Regards.

Fisherman
05-14-2017, 03:40 AM
I think they were both

So Hutch/Blotch was the man turning the school house building in Bucks Row when Lechmere entered Bucks Row?
I see.
I thought that was Kosminski.
Or Levy.
Or Druitt.
Or Hyams.
Or Kelly.
Or Le Grand.
Or Lewis Carroll.
Or van Gogh.
Or Francis Thompson.
Or anybody else, regardless who, as long as it was not Lechmere who dun´it! ;)

Sam Flynn
05-14-2017, 04:25 AM
I do not know,does anyone,what his superiors thought.Perhaps they too were fooled by Aberline's opinion.
Regards.Walter Dew doesn't seem to have believed in Hutchinson's suspect. As he puts it, politely, in his memoirs:

"...is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer"

Walter Dew, I Caught Crippen

Joshua Rogan
05-14-2017, 05:22 AM
Walter Dew doesn't seem to have believed in Hutchinson's suspect. As he puts it, politely, in his memoirs:

"...is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer"

Walter Dew, I Caught Crippen

Sam, Dew doesn't doubt that Hutchinson saw what he said he saw, he suggests that Hutch (and Mrs Maxwell) told the truth but were mistaken about the day of the sighting. That's not at all the same as thinking the whole incident was made up.

Sam Flynn
05-14-2017, 06:20 AM
Sam, Dew doesn't doubt that Hutchinson saw what he said he saw, he suggests that Hutch (and Mrs Maxwell) told the truth but were mistaken about the day of the sighting. That's not at all the same as thinking the whole incident was made up.I'm not suggesting that Dew implied Hutchinson made it all up, only that he favoured Cox's Mr Blotchy over Hutchinson's Mr Astrakhan. Whatever Dew's reasons, it's apparent that he did not share Abberline's faith in Hutchinson's testimony.

Abby Normal
05-14-2017, 06:27 AM
So Hutch/Blotch was the man turning the school house building in Bucks Row when Lechmere entered Bucks Row?
I see.
I thought that was Kosminski.
Or Levy.
Or Druitt.
Or Hyams.
Or Kelly.
Or Le Grand.
Or Lewis Carroll.
Or van Gogh.
Or Francis Thompson.
Or anybody else, regardless who, as long as it was not Lechmere who dun´it! ;)

Hi fish
If blotchy killed Mary then yes he killed Polly.
If hutch killed Mary then yes he killed Polly.

Sam Flynn
05-14-2017, 06:32 AM
Hi fish
If blotchy killed Mary then yes he killed Polly.
If hutch killed Mary then yes he killed Polly.
And, to be even-handed, if Astrakhan killed Mary, then he probably killed Polly, too.

Harry D
05-14-2017, 06:51 AM
Suffice to say, isn't it possible that Astrakhan Man did exist but Hutchinson simply embellished his description to give his story more credibility?

Sam Flynn
05-14-2017, 07:00 AM
Suffice to say, isn't it possible that Astrakhan Man did exist but Hutchinson simply embellished his description to give his story more credibility?
Yes, but I think it's quite possible that he embellished the stories of Mrs "Kennedy" and others, to create his story in the first place.

John Wheat
05-14-2017, 09:04 AM
So Hutch/Blotch was the man turning the school house building in Bucks Row when Lechmere entered Bucks Row?
I see.
I thought that was Kosminski.
Or Levy.
Or Druitt.
Or Hyams.
Or Kelly.
Or Le Grand.
Or Lewis Carroll.
Or van Gogh.
Or Francis Thompson.
Or anybody else, regardless who, as long as it was not Lechmere who dun´it! ;)

It was Bury. Lechmere was just a witness.

Abby Normal
05-14-2017, 12:50 PM
And, to be even-handed, if Astrakhan killed Mary, then he probably killed Polly, too.

Yes of course. But if a man killed anyone I'll eat my hat.

Abby Normal
05-14-2017, 12:53 PM
Yes, but I think it's quite possible that he embellished the stories of Mrs "Kennedy" and others, to create his story in the first place.

Hi sam Harry
Possibly, but I doubt it. If he really saw a man with Mary in the same circumstances he would know not to embellish, as it would be good enough to see anybody with her. And if he embellished it would ruin any chance for reward 15 minutes of fame.

Sam Flynn
05-14-2017, 01:11 PM
HIf he really saw a man with Mary in the same circumstances he would know not to embellish, as it would be good enough to see anybody with her. And if he embellished it would ruin any chance for reward 15 minutes of fame.
Not if he could come up with an even "better" suspect than Mrs Kennedy, Sarah Roney and various unnamed acquaintance of the deceased, all of whose stories were reported by the popular press on the 10th November.

Wickerman
05-14-2017, 02:07 PM
Jon,
Aberline's opinion is not supported by evidence,therefor is of little value.

An Inspector will base his opinion on the evidence available at the time.
This evidence is not available to us over a century later, all we have is one initial statement c/w a few press reports and one police report.

As the vast majority of the paperwork on this case has long since vanished we have to be satisfied with official opinions derived from that evidence.


Those claims,as far as anyone can tell,were not substanciated by a successful police investigation.

Right, it was early evening on Monday, so the police still had time to make some background checks. Example:
- We do not know if Abberline sent an officer to Great Pearl Street to get hold of Sarah Lewis.
- We do not know if Abberline obtained the notebooks of the duty constables who patrolled Dorset St. & Commercial St. Friday morning between 2-3:00 am.
- We do not know if Abberline telegraphed his opposite number in Romford to send a constable to the address where Hutchinson visited to confirm that part of his story (though what that has to do with the murder is another question).
Abberline only needs to confirm something, not every detail. Sufficient to establish that he was indeed in Dorset St. at that hour.

There was time for all of this, but we don't know it it was done.


The person as described by Hutchinson was not found,....

Neither was Blotchy, or Broad-shouldered-man from Berner St. nor Red Necktie-man from Duke St. so why are you focused on Astrachan?

Kelly cannot be placed on the street at the time stated by Hutchinson.

Mrs Kennedy said she saw Kelly at 3:00 am out side the Britannia.

a trip to Romford cannot be confirmed.

We don't know if it was, or not.

Even his claim of standing in Dorset Street,is disbelieved by some,..

Some people on Casebook typically disbelieve what does not fit their theory, regardless of whether their objection makes any sense.

I didn't say the information on Isaacs was the result of someone approaching the police.By the same token as his (Isaac)departure was reported,so could the departure of Hutchinson,had he departed the Victoria Home.By police enquiries.

What that example shows is that Mary Cusins did not go out of her way to report Isaacs missing. So why should anyone at the Victoria Home go out of their way to report Hutchinson missing, especially when residents there come and go on a regular basis.
Besides, if Hutchinson needs to get out quick all he has to do is put the word around that he just received a job offer back in Romford, "gotta go".
Why would anyone at the home report that to police?

The police had no plans to conduct any door-to-door search involving the Victoria Home after the inquest, so I don't understand why you keep bringing this issue up.

In an earlier post on this thread you claimed you were motivated by evidence,something you claimed was lacking in other posters.Well where is the evidence,supporting your claim, that Mary Kelly made three separate trips from her room that night.

I posted that earlier.
- Cox said she saw Kelly with Blotchy at 11:45 pm, Thursday night.
- Hutchinson said he saw Kelly around 2:30 am Friday morning.
- Mrs Kennedy said she saw Kelly at 3:00 am Friday morning.

These are all statements to police, not gossip in the press.
This is why their words constitute evidence, regardless what individuals today think of these people.

Wickerman
05-14-2017, 02:17 PM
Here's a little detail that supports Kelly being out after her liaison with Blotchy, reported in five newspapers.

The Press Association:
Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.
Sheffield Evening Telegraph, Dundee Courier, Nottingham Evening Post, Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, Nov 14th 1888.

Wickerman
05-14-2017, 02:34 PM
I'm not suggesting that Dew implied Hutchinson made it all up, only that he favoured Cox's Mr Blotchy over Hutchinson's Mr Astrakhan. Whatever Dew's reasons, it's apparent that he did not share Abberline's faith in Hutchinson's testimony.

That sounds fair, something similar was reported in the Echo, which suggests the police were divided over both suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan.

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

It seems quite reasonable to accept the authorities were either divided, or in pursuit of two very different suspects.
Neither of which bore fruit, so it is not justified to say Astrachan is doubtful because he was never found (as per Harry), neither was Blotchy found, but then neither was any of the previous suspects.
It's a false argument.

What it does show is that the claim of Hutchinson being discredited (reported by the Star on the 15th) was demonstrably false.

Sam Flynn
05-14-2017, 02:59 PM
It seems quite reasonable to accept the authorities were either divided, or in pursuit of two very different suspects.A fair deduction, in light of the evidence.What it does show is that the claim of Hutchinson being discredited (reported by the Star on the 15th) was demonstrably false.I always read that as Hutchinson's story being disbelieved, rather than Hutchinson being personally "discredited" (as in "found to be disreputable"). That being the case, it may have been that some police no longer believed Hutchinson's story, but that others continued to see it as a legitimate lead, Abberline probably among the latter.

Wickerman
05-14-2017, 04:35 PM
A fair deduction, in light of the evidence.I always read that as Hutchinson's story being disbelieved, rather than Hutchinson being personally "discredited" (as in "found to be disreputable"). That being the case, it may have been that some police no longer believed Hutchinson's story, but that others continued to see it as a legitimate lead, Abberline probably among the latter.

I wouldn't disagree with that interpretation because so long as they are investigating his story then it means his story was not found to be false in any way.
The press were reporting, at least until the 19th of Nov., that Astrachan was still a viable suspect. And, as with all the other suspects, Astrachan & the rest eventually fade from being the topic of the hour.

Just looking back at an earlier post, the one from the Press Association that speaks to Kelly being seen out between 2:00-3:00 am.

This was dated Nov. 14th. As the police had already interviewed some residents of Millers Court on the evening of the 9th, those being the statements collected for the inquest. It strikes me as odd that this Press Association report should imply a second set of interviews had taken place.

Perhaps, this was decided as a result of Hutchinson coming forward on the evening of the 12th.
Did the police choose to go back to Millers Court on the 13th to talk to more residents in order to verify Hutchinson's story?
It seems the press got wind of this and reported it in the papers the next morning - Nov. 14th.

harry
05-14-2017, 06:46 PM
Jon, And what evidence was available? Evidence that supports or distracts from Hutchinson's? How can something that is missing,of which there is no knowledge,ever be proved to have existed. Straying a little it seems,from your oft repeated claims of only dealing with known evidence.

The police had no plans to conduct any door-to-door search of the Victoria home after the inquest.How do you know that? How could Hutchinson know that,to the extent that would influence him in staying or leaving,if the need was there.

Glad you admit you do not know what was done,neither do I,but what I do know is that some law enforcement officers,believe a good knowledge of the informant Is as vital as the information they impart,and that opinion only,
does not prove much.

I only focuss on A man when discussing Hutchinson.I do not consider the others you mention,as being part of his story.

Wickerman
05-15-2017, 02:37 PM
Not if he could come up with an even "better" suspect than Mrs Kennedy, Sarah Roney and various unnamed acquaintance of the deceased, all of whose stories were reported by the popular press on the 10th November.

Hi Gareth.

What you seem to propose is that Hutchinson read a few stories from the newspapers at the Victoria home over the weekend, then decided to use Kennedy's story as his template.
Mrs Kennedy saw no-one in Dorset St.

So, then he added himself in Dorset St. right opposite Millers Court (but amazingly, so did Lewis), and added a couple walking passed him and up the court (but amazingly, so did Lewis), and also added that the woman was slightly drunk (again, amazingly, so did Lewis).
How did both Hutch & Lewis manage to get those particular details the same if Hutch was never really there?

Then, he included a fictitious waiting period of 30-45? minutes, to have him leave Millers court about 3:00 am. Leaving himself wide open for criticism from any number of people who may have come up Dorset St. and told police there was nobody there at that time.

Are you comfortable with all this Gareth?

Varqm
05-15-2017, 03:06 PM
The result of the police checking out Hutchinson's story,whatever they did (no records) - maybe took many weeks,months - is they choose a Jewish witness rather than Hutch.Unless they were that dumb they would have chosen Hutch.It must have been that Hutch was not telling the truth.

Wickerman
05-15-2017, 05:51 PM
They chose the Jewish witness because Lawende had a permanent address, and could be found quite easily. All the other witnesses were transient.

harry
05-16-2017, 01:07 AM
Hutchinson was reported as a resident of the Victoria Home,which means his occupancy could have been for an extended time.

Abby Normal
05-16-2017, 03:58 AM
They chose the Jewish witness because Lawende had a permanent address, and could be found quite easily. All the other witnesses were transient.

Agree, but I would also suggest that it was because he was a "respectable" witness, and had corroboration of his sighting by his companions.

Michael W Richards
05-16-2017, 06:11 AM
I'm wondering whether anyone has made anything of the fact that Daniel Barnett and Georgie boy were both residents of the Victorian Home at that time, if of course the man identifying himself as George did in fact reside there. The ability to easily assume a new name during that period was certainly present. There were few documents that the average person would have to prove they were who they said they were.

Sam Flynn
05-16-2017, 12:26 PM
Hello Jon
What you seem to propose is that Hutchinson read a few stories from the newspapers at the Victoria home over the weekend, then decided to use Kennedy's story as his template.
Not just Kennedy's story, indeed not solely based on the coverage of Kelly's murder, but a collage of reports from previous Ripper murders, too.
So, then he added himself in Dorset St. right opposite Millers CourtAs I said previously, he had to place himself there in Dorset Street to add verisimilitude to his claim that he'd tailed Kelly/Astakhan all the way home, and to add weight to his claim the suspect stayed in there with her for some time.

John G
05-16-2017, 01:19 PM
They chose the Jewish witness because Lawende had a permanent address, and could be found quite easily. All the other witnesses were transient.

Also proximity of sighting to estimated time of death.

Wickerman
05-16-2017, 04:55 PM
Jon, And what evidence was available? Evidence that supports or distracts from Hutchinson's? How can something that is missing,of which there is no knowledge,ever be proved to have existed. Straying a little it seems,from your oft repeated claims of only dealing with known evidence.

The police had no plans to conduct any door-to-door search of the Victoria home after the inquest.How do you know that? How could Hutchinson know that,to the extent that would influence him in staying or leaving,if the need was there.

Glad you admit you do not know what was done,neither do I,but what I do know is that some law enforcement officers,believe a good knowledge of the informant Is as vital as the information they impart,and that opinion only,
does not prove much.

I only focuss on A man when discussing Hutchinson.I do not consider the others you mention,as being part of his story.

What I do not get is your preoccupation with whether Hutchinson's story was verified.
You maintain he could have lied. Fine, but I challenged all comers on Casebook to come up with anything that we can honestly say Hutchinson lied about.

To date, no-one has come up with anything - the belief he lied is fantasy.

A few even went so far as to claim it was 'proven' Hutchinson lied, but when challenged all voices went quiet, why - because it is rubbish.
There is absolutely no indication Hutchinson lied about anything, so why do you keep flogging a dead horse?

harry
05-16-2017, 06:33 PM
Jon,
Fine,but you have also been challenged to provide evidence Hutchinson told the truth,and you hav'nt done so.
Obviously, a claim has to be proven before it can be accepted as being known to be true.You place great trust in evidence so you keep repeating,so why shouldn't I ask you for evidence.
Where is the evidence that A man existed,that Hutchinson went to Romford,that Kelly was seen by Hutchinson in Commercial Street about 2am ,that there were no plans to conduct enquiries at the Victoria Home.

The preoccupation as you call it,is because you keep repeating your belief that those claims are true, because a policeman at the time,had an opinion Hutchinson was telling the truth.

So to stop my preoccupation,submit your evidence.