PDA

View Full Version : Possible reason for Hutch coming forward


Pages : [1] 2

Varqm
11-13-2017, 01:55 PM
The inquest on Kelly ended at ,for arguments sake, Monday 2-4 pm,based on the number of questions asked of witnesses and
depending on how long the witness recited his/her testimony,Hutch came at 6:00 pm.


It's safe to assume the reason Hutch came forward was because the inquest ended abruptly.there were no more inquests.

He then did not have to face the jury,coroner,etc in an inquest court where his testimony was under oath,and was liable
for contempt/fine if caught lying.
In the police station he was not in the same oath and could retract his statement,for ex.
mixing up the days and end up released like witnesses who reported suspicious men who could be the ripper.Besides
Astrakhan man was not present and Hutch was not "accusing/perjuring" somebody which,I assume ,was another/or additional offense.
All he had to know was in a court, as opposed to a police station,testimonies were formal,subject to fine/contempt if lying.
Before 1911 Perjury Act, perjury was confined to the courts (Perjury Act 1728).

Coroners act 1887

The coroner, being guided by
the information he has received, usually sends a message
to those witnesses whom he thinks material. Should
they neglect or refuse to attend, the coroner, as incident
to his office of judge of a court of record, has authority
to issue a summons to compel their appearance where
he has been credibly informed that they are able to give
evidence, and he may if necessary issue a summons to
the constable to bring them into court. If a witness
refuses without sufficient reason to obey this summons,
the coroner may fine him £2 under section 19 ; and if a
witness refuses to give evidence when sworn, or otherwise
misconducts himself in court, the coroner has power to
commit him for contempt. The coroner has also power
to issue a warrant against a witness for contempt of the
summons, under which the constable may bring up the
witness in custody.


Above, to me, the reason Hutch came forward.

Abby Normal
11-13-2017, 02:07 PM
The inquest on Kelly ended at ,for arguments sake, Monday 2-4 pm,based on the number of questions asked of witnesses and
depending on how long the witness recited his/her testimony,Hutch came at 6:00 pm.


It's safe to assume the reason Hutch came forward was because the inquest ended abruptly.there were no more inquests.

He then did not have to face the jury,coroner,etc in an inquest court where his testimony was under oath,and was liable
for contempt/fine if caught lying.In the police station he was not in the same oath and could retract his statement,for ex.
mixing up the days and end up released like witnesses who reported suspicious men who could be the ripper.besides
Astrakhan man was not present and Hutch was not "accusing/perjuring" somebody which,I assume ,was another/or additional offense.
All he had to know was in a court, as opposed to a police station,testimonies were formal,subject to fine/contempt if lying.
Before 1911 Perjury Act,perjury was confined to the courts.

Coroners act 1887

The coroner, being guided by
the information he has received, usually sends a message
to those witnesses whom he thinks material. Should
they neglect or refuse to attend, the coroner, as incident
to his office of judge of a court of record, has authority
to issue a summons to compel their appearance where
he has been credibly informed that they are able to give
evidence, and he may if necessary issue a summons to
the constable to bring them into court. If a witness
refuses without sufficient reason to obey this summons,
the coroner may fine him £2 under section 19 ; and if a
witness refuses to give evidence when sworn, or otherwise
misconducts himself in court, the coroner has power to
commit him for contempt. The coroner has also power
to issue a warrant against a witness for contempt of the
summons, under which the constable may bring up the
witness in custody.


Above, to me, the reason Hutch came forward.

well that's the reason I too believe he didn't attend the inquest-absolutely. But the reason why he actually came forward is another matter.

MysterySinger
11-13-2017, 02:35 PM
He probably wanted an association with the crimes. Some people do.

Wickerman
11-13-2017, 03:34 PM
Well, Varqm, I don't see any reason to believe in deception on the part of Hutchinson.

Why didn't Hutchinson come forward?
It can be easily established by researching the local papers over that weekend following the murder that the most widespread account was that of Maxwell, and the majority of press speculation promoted Kelly's death about, or after, 9:00 am Friday morning.
The reason Hutchinson would not feel compelled to come forward was simply that he met her a good 6-7 hours before she was believed to have been murdered. So what could he possibly know that would help the police - nothing.

So why did he eventually come forward?
The inquest terminated sometime in the afternoon, the Star newspaper was among the first to hit the streets, and it did so before 6:00 pm, 4 or 5 o'clock I think.
In the Star account of the Kelly inquest they provide a subtitle to a paragraph on the testimony of Mary Cox.
"The Murderer Described".
The timeline in her account is 11:45 - 12:00, when she returned at 3:00 am all was quiet.
In my view....Hutchinson knew this to be wrong, he saw Kelly out after 12:00, so he went to tell the police the Cox suspect couldn't have been the murderer.

DJA
11-13-2017, 09:19 PM
Reckon sailor man Hutchinson was a lookout for a blackmail pay off gone wrong,not a murder.

He has waited until after the inquest to tell his tale of Astrakhan man.

Phillips had a good idea what was really going on and arranged the possible reward of a pardon.

richardnunweek
11-14-2017, 02:15 AM
Hi,
Always has to be some kind of conspiracy.
Topping always maintained to his sons, and to everyone else, that he knew one of the victims, gave a statement to the police, and assisted them in looking for the man he saw , but to no avail.
Its really that simple.
He maintained he received Five pounds for his efforts.. a princely sum, however, we don't know how long he kept up the search, and may have been paid for a lengthy period.even if it was circulated that he was not involved .
I have never doubted his account, its not a question whether or not he saw Mr A, but was he the killer?
Regards Richard.

Varqm
11-29-2017, 03:46 AM
well that's the reason I too believe he didn't attend the inquest-absolutely. But the reason why he actually came forward is another matter.

What was the reason?

Varqm
11-29-2017, 03:52 AM
Well, Varqm, I don't see any reason to believe in deception on the part of Hutchinson.

Why didn't Hutchinson come forward?
It can be easily established by researching the local papers over that weekend following the murder that the most widespread account was that of Maxwell, and the majority of press speculation promoted Kelly's death about, or after, 9:00 am Friday morning.
The reason Hutchinson would not feel compelled to come forward was simply that he met her a good 6-7 hours before she was believed to have been murdered. So what could he possibly know that would help the police - nothing.

So why did he eventually come forward?
The inquest terminated sometime in the afternoon, the Star newspaper was among the first to hit the streets, and it did so before 6:00 pm, 4 or 5 o'clock I think.
In the Star account of the Kelly inquest they provide a subtitle to a paragraph on the testimony of Mary Cox.
"The Murderer Described".
The timeline in her account is 11:45 - 12:00, when she returned at 3:00 am all was quiet.
In my view....Hutchinson knew this to be wrong, he saw Kelly out after 12:00, so he went to tell the police the Cox suspect couldn't have been the murderer.


Simply he had info that could help,also as posters say he was a friend of Kelly,no analysis required.

Abby Normal
11-29-2017, 12:32 PM
What was the reason?

Hi Varqm
because if he was the killer he was worried he had been spotted and recognized and felt it was better to come forward as a witness than be found as a suspect.

if not the killer because he wanted to profit off it somehow.

Wickerman
11-29-2017, 01:29 PM
Simply he had info that could help,also as posters say he was a friend of Kelly,no analysis required.

In what way could it help?

Wickerman
11-29-2017, 01:31 PM
Hi Varqm
because if he was the killer he was worried he had been spotted and recognized and felt it was better to come forward as a witness than be found as a suspect.

if not the killer because he wanted to profit off it somehow.

If the killer comes forward as a witness, he thinks he'll be safe?

RockySullivan
11-29-2017, 01:59 PM
Hi Varqm
because if he was the killer he was worried he had been spotted and recognized and felt it was better to come forward as a witness than be found as a suspect.

if not the killer because he wanted to profit off it somehow.

This if how I feel about John Richardson in the Chapman murder. He thought he had been seen either sitting on the steps down in the yard or kneeling next to the body with the knife and that's why he liedabout cutting rubber from his boot with a rusty broken butter knife next to a dead body. If he didn't kill her, what was he doing, prying the rings off?

c.d.
11-29-2017, 04:43 PM
If the killer comes forward as a witness, he thinks he'll be safe?

Hello Wick,

Of course. Because when the police discussed it among themselves and somebody said "you know it is pretty suspicious that he claimed to know the victim and was apparently the last one to see her alive and his story seemed a bit much" someone would immediately respond with "but on the other hand he did come forward as a witness." Yeah right.

Regardless he still would have been a person of interest and would have been questioned and his answers would have to be sufficient witness or no witness status.

c.d.

caz
11-30-2017, 04:47 AM
I agree, c.d.

Also, given his claimed acquaintance with Kelly, and claimed proximity in place and time to her murder scene, I can't see the police simply dismissing him as a liar who had never met Kelly and wasn't even there that night. If they finally concluded he had been lying, they would have wanted to establish his motives for lying.

Was he merely an attention seeker? Was he hoping to make money from his story, either from the police or the press? Did he have mental health issues?
Where had he really been that night, if nowhere near Miller's Court? Or - if none of the above could be confirmed, why would he have lied about what happened if he was really there? It would then have been imperative to ascertain what he may have had to hide.

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
11-30-2017, 05:08 AM
This if how I feel about John Richardson in the Chapman murder. He thought he had been seen either sitting on the steps down in the yard or kneeling next to the body with the knife and that's why he liedabout cutting rubber from his boot with a rusty broken butter knife next to a dead body. If he didn't kill her, what was he doing, prying the rings off?

Nice rocky. Never thought about that before. I like it.

Reminiscent of hutch shanking his story later when he says heís now outside her apartment. Scared someone had seen him and changes his story.
Classic lying behavior.

Herlock Sholmes
11-30-2017, 05:26 AM
Hi guys,

I think Iíve missed something? Richardson prying off Chapmanís rings? Whereís that from?

Michael W Richards
11-30-2017, 05:32 AM
Well, Varqm, I don't see any reason to believe in deception on the part of Hutchinson.

Why didn't Hutchinson come forward?
It can be easily established by researching the local papers over that weekend following the murder that the most widespread account was that of Maxwell, and the majority of press speculation promoted Kelly's death about, or after, 9:00 am Friday morning.
The reason Hutchinson would not feel compelled to come forward was simply that he met her a good 6-7 hours before she was believed to have been murdered. So what could he possibly know that would help the police - nothing.



That's uncharacteristically naÔve from you Jon, IF Hutchinsons account wasn't fabricated, like Astrakan woven onto a collar, then he would have every reason to suspect that he would have been the last person to have seen her in the company of someone. What he does do is waits all day Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and until after 5pm on Monday. After the Inquest. With what can only be described as the most meticulously detailed description of someone with a soon to be victim.

I think why George came forward might be because he knew someone saw him there and he needed to explain why he was seen loitering, or, he wasn't there at all but was claiming to be that man because a simple explanation was needed for that individual. It was Wideawake Man that was arguably the catalyst for the Pardon offer Saturday afternoon. Converting someone seen suspiciously loitering to a friend watching out for a friend is really quite clever. I recall that both he and Daniel Barnett resided at The Victorian Home at that time, and that Daniel was seen out with Mary on the Tuesday or Wednesday night preceding. So many coincidences in some of these cases, tangential links to other key people or residences, overlapping characters.

Wonder who the other Joe was that Mary was seeing? Interesting side bit along the overlapping characters vein...in the Stride case its documented that Louis said he and "Issac[s]" went out to look for help, but its also on record that Issac Kozedbrodski stated that he was sent out alone by Louis...at around 12:45..but that another debate. Wonder if it could have actually been Joseph Issacs, the same guy who moved around the corner from Mary just after Barnett moved out, and abandoned his dwellings unexpectedly the night she was killed?

Abby Normal
11-30-2017, 05:32 AM
Hi guys,

I think I’ve missed something? Richardson prying off Chapman’s rings? Where’s that from?

Pure speculation.
But Chapman was missing a ring, it was determined it had been taken recently and forcefully, probably by the killer.

Abby Normal
11-30-2017, 06:03 AM
I agree, c.d.

Also, given his claimed acquaintance with Kelly, and claimed proximity in place and time to her murder scene, I can't see the police simply dismissing him as a liar who had never met Kelly and wasn't even there that night. If they finally concluded he had been lying, they would have wanted to establish his motives for lying.

Was he merely an attention seeker? Was he hoping to make money from his story, either from the police or the press? Did he have mental health issues?
Where had he really been that night, if nowhere near Miller's Court? Or - if none of the above could be confirmed, why would he have lied about what happened if he was really there? It would then have been imperative to ascertain what he may have had to hide.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz/CD

isn't it most likely that they simply came to the conclusion that hutch was nothing more than what he probably actually was-just an attention seeker ala violenia and packer?

Wickerman
11-30-2017, 02:53 PM
That's uncharacteristically naÔve from you Jon, IF Hutchinsons account wasn't fabricated, like Astrakan woven onto a collar, then he would have every reason to suspect that he would have been the last person to have seen her in the company of someone......

I can take the criticism Michael, thats ok. What I would like you to do though, is offer a few of those reason's why G. H. would believe he was the last person to see Kelly in the company of someone 6-7 hours before it was believed she was murdered.

Just a few, Michael. Thanks.

If you recall, Swanson wasn't sold on the idea that Broad Shoulder Man had killed Stride, because there was 15 minutes that could not be accounted for.
Only 15 minutes Michael, 15 minutes is sufficient for the whole scene to change - and we are talking here about 6-7 hours!!!

c.d.
11-30-2017, 04:36 PM
Hi Caz/CD

isn't it most likely that they simply came to the conclusion that hutch was nothing more than what he probably actually was-just an attention seeker ala violenia and packer?

Hello Abby,

But at what point do you think they apparently came to this conclusion? Before questioning him? That would certainly be piss poor police work.

c.d.

Abby Normal
11-30-2017, 04:43 PM
Hello Abby,

But at what point do you think they apparently came to this conclusion? Before questioning him? That would certainly be piss poor police work.

c.d.

after of course cd

c.d.
11-30-2017, 04:52 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, Abby but I am having trouble understanding your position. Are you arguing that the police considered Hutch suspicious and thoroughly questioned him but were in error when they concluded he was not involved or are you arguing that they never were suspicious of him in the first place? Or is it something else?

c.d.

Abby Normal
11-30-2017, 05:52 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, Abby but I am having trouble understanding your position. Are you arguing that the police considered Hutch suspicious and thoroughly questioned him but were in error when they concluded he was not involved or are you arguing that they never were suspicious of him in the first place? Or is it something else?

c.d.

No worries cd. Iím arguing that the police obviously questioned him as a witness (and veracity as such) but never as a real suspect, initially believed his witness story, probably because abberline had no initial reason not to, perhaps because he had just come from the inquest and had heard Lewisís waiting man person, and hutch comes in shortly after, and confirms it, but soon after wards probably came to the conclusion that hutch was full of ****, perhaps because nothing came of his aman character and or hutchís later embellished news story, putting hutch in the same attention seeking category of recently embarrassing ďwitnessesĒ as violenia and packer.

It ainít rocket science.

Wickerman
11-30-2017, 07:27 PM
A person is not really a suspect until the police find cause to have suspicions.

They need to interview Hutch first, before they can form an opinion. So it is true that he was never a suspect in the eyes of the police. Apparently, he convinced them in this interview/interrogation that he was telling the truth.
But, we have no indication that the police ever dismissed Hutchinson, or his story. Like many other cases, the prominence of the eyewitness just faded from the public eye, and the story is forgotten.

caz
12-01-2017, 04:09 AM
Hi Caz/CD

isn't it most likely that they simply came to the conclusion that hutch was nothing more than what he probably actually was-just an attention seeker ala violenia and packer?

Not really, Abby, no. I don't think they'd have simply assumed this to be the case, without at least trying to establish his true whereabouts that night if they didn't believe he was where he claimed to be.

With Packer, they knew where he'd have been and that he had an obviously genuine reason for being there, even if his witness account was a packer lies. :pleased: There was certainly no reason to treat him as a murder suspect, unlike someone who claimed to have been loitering near a horrific crime scene for what was a faintly ridiculous reason. At the very least, the police should have given Hutch a scare he wouldn't forget, for wasting their time. If they thought he'd invented the entire story out of whole cloth, just for some attention, they ought to have given him a very hard time and made him think they suspected him, even if they didn't, to teach him a lesson.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-01-2017, 04:33 AM
A person is not really a suspect until the police find cause to have suspicions.

They need to interview Hutch first, before they can form an opinion. So it is true that he was never a suspect in the eyes of the police. Apparently, he convinced them in this interview/interrogation that he was telling the truth.
But, we have no indication that the police ever dismissed Hutchinson, or his story. Like many other cases, the prominence of the eyewitness just faded from the public eye, and the story is forgotten.

Agreed, Jon.

I don't think the police doubted that Hutch came forward because he thought his information could be important. It seems that the trail went cold, just as it did with the search for Blotchy. Nobody thinks Mrs Cox was making him up, or should have been a suspect, do they?

Had we been talking about a Georgina Hutchinson, who was overly curious about Kelly's latest flashy customer, things would have been very different over the last few years!

Love,

Caz
X

Herlock Sholmes
12-01-2017, 04:40 AM
Pure speculation.
But Chapman was missing a ring, it was determined it had been taken recently and forcefully, probably by the killer.

Thanks Abby,

I thought that thereíd been some revelation while Iíve been away?

Abby Normal
12-01-2017, 07:21 AM
Agreed, Jon.

I don't think the police doubted that Hutch came forward because he thought his information could be important. It seems that the trail went cold, just as it did with the search for Blotchy. Nobody thinks Mrs Cox was making him up, or should have been a suspect, do they?

Had we been talking about a Georgina Hutchinson, who was overly curious about Kelly's latest flashy customer, things would have been very different over the last few years!

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Nobody thinks Mrs Cox was making him up, or should have been a suspect, do they?


they have no reason to think she was making it up-indeed to this day shes one of the most credible witnesses and a lot of people even now still think that blotchy is a good bet for the ripper, unlike hutch and his Aman.

Had we been talking about a Georgina Hutchinson, who was overly curious about Kelly's latest flashy customer, things would have been very different over the last few years!


cox had every reason to be where she was-hutch had no explanation. and to your "georgina" point-that's because no one really thinks then as now, rightfully, that a woman is going to be the ripper.

Abby Normal
12-01-2017, 07:29 AM
Not really, Abby, no. I don't think they'd have simply assumed this to be the case, without at least trying to establish his true whereabouts that night if they didn't believe he was where he claimed to be.

With Packer, they knew where he'd have been and that he had an obviously genuine reason for being there, even if his witness account was a packer lies. :pleased: There was certainly no reason to treat him as a murder suspect, unlike someone who claimed to have been loitering near a horrific crime scene for what was a faintly ridiculous reason. At the very least, the police should have given Hutch a scare he wouldn't forget, for wasting their time. If they thought he'd invented the entire story out of whole cloth, just for some attention, they ought to have given him a very hard time and made him think they suspected him, even if they didn't, to teach him a lesson.

Love,

Caz
X

well I agree with you there. they SHOULD have treated him as a murder suspect, and or dragged his ass over the coals for wasting there time.

Fisherman
12-01-2017, 08:48 AM
well I agree with you there. they SHOULD have treated him as a murder suspect, and or dragged his ass over the coals for wasting there time.

They should only have treated him as a murder suspect if there were indications that he had killed Kelly, and no such indications were present.

And they DID haul his behind over the coals - he was interrogated, and so we may conclude that he was regarded as a person of interest in the investigation. If something had surfaced during that interrogation that called for grading him up to an outright suspect, they would have done so.

Additionally, far from thinking he had wasted their time, the police apparently acted upon his tip about Astrakhan man, and sought the latter high and low for many days after the Kelly murder.

caz
12-01-2017, 09:20 AM
cox had every reason to be where she was-hutch had no explanation.

Same point I made about Packer. He had every reason to be where he was, while Hutch had no credible explanation. That's why I doubt the police would have treated their accounts in the same way.

and to your "georgina" point-that's because no one really thinks then as now, rightfully, that a woman is going to be the ripper.

Well quite. My point was that if Hutch had been a woman who came forward with the exact same story, nobody today would view 'her' actions as suspicious, even if they still had her down as an attention seeking liar. In short, it appears that the only reason Hutch became a suspect in modern times is because he happened to be male and therefore fair game for pin the tail on the donkey.

Nobody in 1888 seriously considered him as a likely suspect, and I don't accept this was because he cunningly wrong-footed them all by coming forward [belatedly, remember] as a witness. What was he? A time traveller, who was au fait with modern offenders doing this, and knew the possibility would simply not occur to anyone in 1888 besides himself?

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-01-2017, 09:34 AM
well I agree with you there. they SHOULD have treated him as a murder suspect, and or dragged his ass over the coals for wasting there time.

But only if they'd had reason to suspect his motives for coming forward, which they appear not to have done.

Only if they had concluded he was lying should they have looked much more closely at him and at why he was lying, but there is no evidence for this conclusion.

Good weekend. :hiya:

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-01-2017, 09:49 AM
If something had surfaced during that interrogation that called for grading him up to an outright suspect, they would have done so.

Oh no, Fish, you are quite wrong there. The police had no concept back then that an offender could possibly come forward claiming to be a mere witness. Hutch could have turned out his own pockets to reveal half a kidney and a human heart and his status would not have been upgraded even to a person of interest. He was safe as houses. ;)

Love,

Caz
X

Fisherman
12-01-2017, 10:14 AM
Oh no, Fish, you are quite wrong there. The police had no concept back then that an offender could possibly come forward claiming to be a mere witness. Hutch could have turned out his own pockets to reveal half a kidney and a human heart and his status would not have been upgraded even to a person of interest. He was safe as houses. ;)

Love,

Caz
X

I canīt make my mind up whether you are trying to make fun of Abby or me, Caz. You need to be more clear.

Abby Normal
12-01-2017, 11:51 AM
I canīt make my mind up whether you are trying to make fun of Abby or me, Caz. You need to be more clear.

me obviously, and anyone who thinks hutch should be a suspect.

Abby Normal
12-01-2017, 12:00 PM
Same point I made about Packer. He had every reason to be where he was, while Hutch had no credible explanation. That's why I doubt the police would have treated their accounts in the same way.



Well quite. My point was that if Hutch had been a woman who came forward with the exact same story, nobody today would view 'her' actions as suspicious, even if they still had her down as an attention seeking liar. In short, it appears that the only reason Hutch became a suspect in modern times is because he happened to be male and therefore fair game for pin the tail on the donkey.

Nobody in 1888 seriously considered him as a likely suspect, and I don't accept this was because he cunningly wrong-footed them all by coming forward [belatedly, remember] as a witness. What was he? A time traveller, who was au fait with modern offenders doing this, and knew the possibility would simply not occur to anyone in 1888 besides himself?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Well quite. My point was that if Hutch had been a woman who came forward with the exact same story, nobody today would view 'her' actions as suspicious, even if they still had her down as an attention seeking liar. In short, it appears that the only reason Hutch became a suspect in modern times is because he happened to be male and therefore fair game for pin the tail on the donkey.



theres more reasons to suspect hutch -other than just being a man! LOL

What was he? A time traveller, who was au fait with modern offenders doing this, and knew the possibility would simply not occur to anyone in 1888 besides himself?

more than likely just an attention seeker IMHO. But if he was the ripper,no-not a time travellor-just a serial killer ahead of his time ; ).
seriously though-he would just be was a brazen killer and good liar/manipulator, who fooled the police. which the ripper did on many levels.

lets also keep in mind there were no more murders for many months until McKenzie-so Hutch figuring he needs to chill out for awhile fits also.

Fisherman
12-01-2017, 12:03 PM
me obviously, and anyone who thinks hutch should be a suspect.

Then Iīll leave it to you to to produce some little contrafire, Abby. If her ability to judge the Lechmere case is something to go by, Iīd say you neednīt worry too much.

c.d.
12-01-2017, 04:26 PM
I am having trouble understanding how an interrogation differs depending on whether or not the person being interrogated is a witness as opposed to a person of interest. Maybe a witness gets a comfy chair and a cup of tea but aren't the questions basically the same especially if the witness has circumstances like Hutch?

c.d.

c.d.
12-01-2017, 05:04 PM
Are we to assume that Hutchinson, who by his own admission knew the deceased and saw her shortly before her death and then admitted to standing outside the deceased's apartment for some time, was questioned in exactly the same way as Fanny Mortimer who was a witness in the Stride case?

It seems to me that there are witnesses and then there is Hutchinson. Witness or no witness I can't believe he was handled with kid gloves and was not asked tough questions.

c.d.

Wickerman
12-01-2017, 05:14 PM
Are we to assume that Hutchinson, who by his own admission knew the deceased and saw her shortly before her death and then admitted to standing outside the deceased's apartment for some time, was questioned in exactly the same way as Fanny Mortimer who was a witness in the Stride case?

It seems to me that there are witnesses and then there is Hutchinson. Witness or no witness I can't believe he was handled with kid gloves and was not asked tough questions.

c.d.

His treatment by Abberline may have been influenced, to a degree, by the reason he gave for not coming forward.
I think that would be true in any case.

Varqm
12-02-2017, 08:16 PM
Are we to assume that Hutchinson, who by his own admission knew the deceased and saw her shortly before her death and then admitted to standing outside the deceased's apartment for some time, was questioned in exactly the same way as Fanny Mortimer who was a witness in the Stride case?

It seems to me that there are witnesses and then there is Hutchinson. Witness or no witness I can't believe he was handled with kid gloves and was not asked tough questions.

c.d.

I agree they wanted to catch the killer,and see if Hutch was a good lead or not.

It was a different environment then during the murders,there were a lot of false witnesses/suspicions and there was no law,it was not unusual.

It's not unusual for a PC to be mistaken initially,it's not like determining a witness to be a liar or not was accurate,that's why I said they would have investigated him.Even today with an additional polygraph test along with an interview/interrogation they still make mistakes.

caz
12-04-2017, 07:48 AM
I canīt make my mind up whether you are trying to make fun of Abby or me, Caz. You need to be more clear.

A bit of both, if the cap fits, Fish. :)

You might want to watch that any argument you make that the police would have upgraded Hutch from witness to person of interest or suspect if his story didn't add up [for example if it conflicted with other witness testimony] is applied equally to Lech. If the police doubted Kelly went out again after Blotchy, for instance, they'd have had reason to keep a closer eye on Hutch. Similarly, if the police accepted PC Mizen's version of events after the Buck's Row murder, they'd have had reason to keep a closer eye on Lech.

Many elements of the typical arguments for and against Hutch can be seen by those of us on the outside looking in as similar to those for and against Lech.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-04-2017, 08:14 AM
Hi Caz

theres more reasons to suspect hutch -other than just being a man! LOL

Yes, Abby, but being a man would have been the first thing the police noticed about Hutch and, as such, someone for them to eliminate from their ongoing murder enquiries, given his claimed proximity in time and place to the latest victim of the most wanted killer in recent criminal history. Whatever reasons you may conjure up today to suspect Hutch, the police clearly had none of them at the time, when they had him there up close and personal, to interrogate and compare with all previous witness descriptions and so on.

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
12-04-2017, 08:22 AM
Yes, Abby, but being a man would have been the first thing the police noticed about Hutch and, as such, someone for them to eliminate from their ongoing murder enquiries, given his claimed proximity in time and place to the latest victim of the most wanted killer in recent criminal history. Whatever reasons you may conjure up today to suspect Hutch, the police clearly had none of them at the time, when they had him there up close and personal, to interrogate and compare with all previous witness descriptions and so on.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
your absolutely right-the police never apparently suspected him, and that is a check mark against his validity as a suspect to me also. However, I'm certainly not conjuring up anything. he engaged in stalking behavior, had fictitional suspect and waited until after the inquest to come forward and had no alibi.

I don't think the police were idiots, but neither were they infallible-especially at this early stage in serial/homicide "motiveless" crimes.

and the only thing "conjured up" is hutches Aman.

John Wheat
12-04-2017, 08:46 AM
Hi Caz
your absolutely right-the police never apparently suspected him, and that is a check mark against his validity as a suspect to me also. However, I'm certainly not conjuring up anything. he engaged in stalking behavior, had fictitional suspect and waited until after the inquest to come forward and had no alibi.

I don't think the police were idiots, but neither were they infallible-especially at this early stage in serial/homicide "motiveless" crimes.

and the only thing "conjured up" is hutches Aman.

We don't know Hutch's suspect was fictional.

Fisherman
12-04-2017, 09:24 AM
We don't know Hutch's suspect was fictional.

Au contraire, actually - we know that the police accepted him as a reality, and we know that they sought for him for a long time. Plus we know that there were people around at the time who actually answered quite well to the approximate description given by Hutchinson. So the only conjecture I see around here is the one telling us that Hutchinson must have made Astrakhan man up. He must not, and the police did not think that he did.

Feels a bit weird to agree with you, John, but thatīs what Ripperology does to us; every now and then we stand on the same side with people we otherwise do not share nothing much at all.

Michael W Richards
12-04-2017, 10:51 AM
I can take the criticism Michael, thats ok. What I would like you to do though, is offer a few of those reason's why G. H. would believe he was the last person to see Kelly in the company of someone 6-7 hours before it was believed she was murdered.

Just a few, Michael. Thanks.

If you recall, Swanson wasn't sold on the idea that Broad Shoulder Man had killed Stride, because there was 15 minutes that could not be accounted for.
Only 15 minutes Michael, 15 minutes is sufficient for the whole scene to change - and we are talking here about 6-7 hours!!!

If I recall Jon Bond thought she had been murdered before Hutchs sighting.

Fisherman
12-04-2017, 11:25 AM
If I recall Jon Bond thought she had been murdered before Hutchs sighting.

... which, if it is true, points to how Hutchinson could not have seen Kelly with Astrakhan man on that day ... but quite possibly on the day before.

Abby Normal
12-04-2017, 12:14 PM
Au contraire, actually - we know that the police accepted him as a reality, and we know that they sought for him for a long time. Plus we know that there were people around at the time who actually answered quite well to the approximate description given by Hutchinson. So the only conjecture I see around here is the one telling us that Hutchinson must have made Astrakhan man up. He must not, and the police did not think that he did.

Feels a bit weird to agree with you, John, but thatīs what Ripperology does to us; every now and then we stand on the same side with people we otherwise do not share nothing much at all.

yes, it makes strange bedfellows sometimes as well as adversaries! : )

Wickerman
12-04-2017, 02:01 PM
If I recall Jon Bond thought she had been murdered before Hutchs sighting.

Indeed Michael, though Hutch would not be aware of that when he gave his statement.
And, for Bond to come up with such a time as 1-2:00, he had to have been given an assumed purchase time for the fish & potato pie, or fish & chips, whatever it was. Other than that he would not have been aware of any evidence given by witnesses.

Wickerman
12-04-2017, 02:10 PM
.....
your absolutely right-the police never apparently suspected him, and that is a check mark against his validity as a suspect to me also.

I think the whole "suspect" argument came from the fact that the nearest ones to the victim, like spouse or lover, in this case a friend, plus any person claiming to be the last one to see the victim alive - are automatically people who the police will track down. We call them automatic suspects, though that can give the wrong impression. Today they be "Persons of Interest".

Other than that Hutch was not a suspect in the traditional sense of the word.

c.d.
12-04-2017, 04:30 PM
Hello Wick,

Agreed. I think the important thing is regardless of whether the police considered Hutch a witness, person of interest, suspect, publicity seeker, nut job or ice cream salesman he would have been asked why he was standing outside of Mary's apartment that night and what his relationship was with her etc. Apparently his answers convinced the police (rightly or wrongly) that he was not involved in her murder.

c.d.

Wickerman
12-04-2017, 06:08 PM
Hello Wick,

Agreed. I think the important thing is regardless of whether the police considered Hutch a witness, person of interest, suspect, publicity seeker, nut job or ice cream salesman he would have been asked why he was standing outside of Mary's apartment that night and what his relationship was with her etc. Apparently his answers convinced the police (rightly or wrongly) that he was not involved in her murder.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

That's a tricky one.
From our point of view, knowing as little as we do. There isn't a wide range of feasible answers to that question.
I'm not sure he would have said that he waited with the intent of checking on Kelly after Astrachan leaves, because the next day he told a reporter that the man did not look suspicious.
Abberline was quite capable of considering a few illicit reason's for Hutch to loiter as long as he did. So, as you say, Hutch must have been quite convincing in the reason he gave.

John Wheat
12-05-2017, 03:28 AM
Au contraire, actually - we know that the police accepted him as a reality, and we know that they sought for him for a long time. Plus we know that there were people around at the time who actually answered quite well to the approximate description given by Hutchinson. So the only conjecture I see around here is the one telling us that Hutchinson must have made Astrakhan man up. He must not, and the police did not think that he did.

Feels a bit weird to agree with you, John, but thatīs what Ripperology does to us; every now and then we stand on the same side with people we otherwise do not share nothing much at all.

Fair enough. I've said this before and maybe it's a bit obvious but I agree with someone when I think they are right. I'd have thought most people would share this attitude.

caz
12-05-2017, 04:26 AM
Hi Caz
your absolutely right-the police never apparently suspected him, and that is a check mark against his validity as a suspect to me also. However, I'm certainly not conjuring up anything. he engaged in stalking behavior, had fictitional suspect and waited until after the inquest to come forward and had no alibi.

I don't think the police were idiots, but neither were they infallible-especially at this early stage in serial/homicide "motiveless" crimes.

and the only thing "conjured up" is hutches Aman.

Hi Abby,

He had a potential alibi, if he left the court when he said he did, and Kelly could have been killed later.

But there is also the possibility that the police made enquiries and discovered Hutch was in Romford the whole time, or even safely tucked up in bed at the Victoria Home, and was perhaps recalling an encounter from a day or two earlier, if not inventing the whole thing. Either way he'd have been officially cleared - along with his real or fictional suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-05-2017, 04:36 AM
If I recall Jon Bond thought she had been murdered before Hutchs sighting.

So an alibi for Hutch.

And others thought it was after a cry of murder heard shortly before 4am, or even several hours later.

So an alibi again for Hutch, presuming nobody could prove he didn't leave at 3am as he claimed.

Did anyone put the time of death while Hutch was meant to be hanging round the court?

One of the points frequently brought up in the A6 murder thread is that a suspect doesn't have to prove their whereabouts or come up with a credible alibi; it's up to the prosecution, not just to demolish an alibi, but to put the suspect beyond reasonable doubt at the scene of crime when it was committed.

If there is no conclusive time of death, this makes it virtually impossible to put Hutch in 13 Miller's Court when Kelly was being slaughtered.

Love,

Caz
X

Michael W Richards
12-05-2017, 04:37 AM
Hi Caz
your absolutely right-the police never apparently suspected him, and that is a check mark against his validity as a suspect to me also. However, I'm certainly not conjuring up anything. he engaged in stalking behavior, had fictitional suspect and waited until after the inquest to come forward and had no alibi.

I don't think the police were idiots, but neither were they infallible-especially at this early stage in serial/homicide "motiveless" crimes.

and the only thing "conjured up" is hutches Aman.

I think its possible the entire story was a fairy tale Caz, including the walk from Romford. What I don't see is why extra caution wasnt given to this story without any proof of it in the most meaningful accounts given. Those witnesses of the courtyard, and from #26. The fact that one of those witnesses saw someone lurking makes this coming forward....after 4 days...dangerous. His story when married with another account makes him as you say, at the very least a stalker, and a potential accomplice to the crime..."if only after the fact". Maybe they thought they had missed the boat with Packer and decided to throw caution to the wind.

Why he would do it is for me the fascination with Hutchinson. What could be gained,... although on the face of it the obvious transition from stalker to friend-looking-out-for-friend would allow the actual Wideawake some time to breathe. I think his intention was to do just that, but to whose benefit?

caz
12-05-2017, 04:48 AM
You were addressing Abby's post, Michael, not mine. I don't really buy the 'stalker' accusation. We only have Hutch's own words for what he was doing, and the police didn't appear to get the impression that he had been indulging in stalking behaviour and was now choosing to volunteer that information. :rolleyes2:

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
12-05-2017, 05:07 AM
Hi Abby,

He had a potential alibi, if he left the court when he said he did, and Kelly could have been killed later.

But there is also the possibility that the police made enquiries and discovered Hutch was in Romford the whole time, or even safely tucked up in bed at the Victoria Home, and was perhaps recalling an encounter from a day or two earlier, if not inventing the whole thing. Either way he'd have been officially cleared - along with his real or fictional suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz
He had no alibi, was never, as we can tell a suspect, and never cleared.

Now if you and others want to say his witness interview somehow included him being a defacto suspect and questioning and clearing then so be it, but itís not really how it played out. The extent of suspicion never got farther than perhaps the police came to believe his story as a witness was BS, like previous BS witnesses, as reflected in the press stories as being discounted, and didnít want to waste any more time with him.

Abby Normal
12-05-2017, 05:34 AM
You were addressing Abby's post, Michael, not mine. I don't really buy the 'stalker' accusation. We only have Hutch's own words for what he was doing, and the police didn't appear to get the impression that he had been indulging in stalking behaviour and was now choosing to volunteer that information. :rolleyes2:

Love,

Caz
X

The police didn’t know the significance of stalking behavior back then.
And if you don’t think following a woman around, watching what she was doing with other people, following her to her house, and waiting and watching her house for the better part of an hour in the middle of the night than I can’t help you.

Abby Normal
12-05-2017, 05:39 AM
So an alibi for Hutch.

And others thought it was after a cry of murder heard shortly before 4am, or even several hours later.

So an alibi again for Hutch, presuming nobody could prove he didn't leave at 3am as he claimed.

Did anyone put the time of death while Hutch was meant to be hanging round the court?

One of the points frequently brought up in the A6 murder thread is that a suspect doesn't have to prove their whereabouts or come up with a credible alibi; it's up to the prosecution, not just to demolish an alibi, but to put the suspect beyond reasonable doubt at the scene of crime when it was committed.

If there is no conclusive time of death, this makes it virtually impossible to put Hutch in 13 Miller's Court when Kelly was being slaughtered.

Love,

Caz
X
What a coincidence that hutch ends his little vigil shortly before the screams of murder are heard and then walks about for the rest of the night.

Thatís some alibi.

c.d.
12-05-2017, 04:24 PM
Hi caz
He had no alibi, was never, as we can tell a suspect, and never cleared.

Now if you and others want to say his witness interview somehow included him being a defacto suspect and questioning and clearing then so be it, but itís not really how it played out. The extent of suspicion never got farther than perhaps the police came to believe his story as a witness was BS, like previous BS witnesses, as reflected in the press stories as being discounted, and didnít want to waste any more time with him.

Hello Abby,

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the police determined his story was BS (in other words he LIED to them) AND he claimed to know the deceased AND was with her right before she died.

You're lumping Hutchinson in with other witnesses be they BS witnesses or not and missing the most important point --Hutchinson was not an ordinary witness. Hutchinson claimed to know the deceased and was with her right before her death. Now throw in a lie. You say you don't think the police were idiots but wouldn't have alarm bells gone off like crazy if this were the case. If you think his actions were suspicious why would the police not feel the same way? And if they had these suspicions would they not have acted on them?

c.d.

c.d.
12-05-2017, 04:37 PM
Hi Abby,

He had a potential alibi, if he left the court when he said he did, and Kelly could have been killed later.

But there is also the possibility that the police made enquiries and discovered Hutch was in Romford the whole time, or even safely tucked up in bed at the Victoria Home, and was perhaps recalling an encounter from a day or two earlier, if not inventing the whole thing. Either way he'd have been officially cleared - along with his real or fictional suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

I have always wondered if something like this might not have been the case. Hutchinson tells them that he was hoping to get some reward money or simply wanted the thrill of insinuating himself into the case. He admits that he was in an all night card game with ten other men. The police check his story and are able to verify it. So much for Hutch.

c.d.

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

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the police determined his story was BS (in other words he LIED to them) AND he claimed to know the deceased AND was with her right before she died.

You're lumping Hutchinson in with other witnesses be they BS witnesses or not and missing the most important point --Hutchinson was not an ordinary witness. Hutchinson claimed to know the deceased and was with her right before her death. Now throw in a lie. You say you don't think the police were idiots but wouldn't have alarm bells gone off like crazy if this were the case. If you think his actions were suspicious why would the police not feel the same way? And if they had these suspicions would they not have acted on them?

c.d.

because they believed him? then nothing came of it. what are they supposed to do? he had no alibi-they couldn't check it out. waste of time.

Abby Normal
12-05-2017, 05:06 PM
Hello Caz,

I have always wondered if something like this might not have been the case. Hutchinson tells them that he was hoping to get some reward money or simply wanted the thrill of insinuating himself into the case. He admits that he was in an all night card game with ten other men. The police check his story and are able to verify it. So much for Hutch.

c.d.

if that were the case and they have a confession he lied, wasn't here, verified by other witnesses... then that probably would have been enough to charge him with lying.

Wickerman
12-05-2017, 05:38 PM
The police didnít know the significance of stalking behavior back then.


Hi Abby.

Where did you get that idea from?

Stalking was an essential part of mugging (or garrotting), whether the mugged victim died of his injuries or not is immaterial. And mugging was a regular street crime since before the police were formed.
Stalking, is just sizing up a victim and waiting for the opportunity to pounce.

Wickerman
12-05-2017, 05:52 PM
What a coincidence that hutch ends his little vigil shortly before the screams of murder are heard and then walks about for the rest of the night.

Thatís some alibi.

But you're assuming the police didn't find an alibi. Another homeless night walker, coffee stall holder, anyone on the street who Hutchinson met.
It's like all the other accusations against Hutchinson, they're all based on supposition.
He was believed by the police, as far out as Dec 6th for sure. After that the subject never came up again.

Wickerman
12-05-2017, 06:00 PM
Hutchinson claimed to know the deceased and was with her right before her death. Now throw in a lie. You say you don't think the police were idiots but wouldn't have alarm bells gone off like crazy if this were the case. If you think his actions were suspicious why would the police not feel the same way? And if they had these suspicions would they not have acted on them?

c.d.

If the police determined Hutch to have lied about where he was after leaving the court, at the very least he would have been held/detained, for questioning. The press did report on anyone detained by police at the various stations. So that would have been in the press, given his abrupt rise then fall as an extraordinary witness, turned suspect.
But, it never happened.

Abby Normal
12-05-2017, 06:13 PM
But you're assuming the police didn't find an alibi. Another homeless night walker, coffee stall holder, anyone on the street who Hutchinson met.
It's like all the other accusations against Hutchinson, they're all based on supposition.
He was believed by the police, as far out as Dec 6th for sure. After that the subject never came up again.

I’m not assuming anything. They didn’t find an alibi, because he didn’t have one.
And the only thing based on supposition, as you say, is that they found one.

Abby Normal
12-05-2017, 06:16 PM
If the police determined Hutch to have lied about where he was after leaving the court, at the very least he would have been held/detained, for questioning. The press did report on anyone detained by police at the various stations. So that would have been in the press, given his abrupt rise then fall as an extraordinary witness, turned suspect.
But, it never happened.

Because apparently they couldnít prove he lied because his excuse was he walked around all night. How you going to disprove that?

Wickerman
12-05-2017, 06:39 PM
Because apparently they couldnít prove he lied because his excuse was he walked around all night. How you going to disprove that?

But that is modern guesswork. We have no written record of any investigation into Hutchinson's movements.
So the chance they may have been able to corroborate his story is purely 50/50, maybe yes, maybe no.
The point is, they still believed his story in the first week of December.

Abby Normal
12-05-2017, 07:29 PM
But that is modern guesswork. We have no written record of any investigation into Hutchinson's movements.
So the chance they may have been able to corroborate his story is purely 50/50, maybe yes, maybe no.
The point is, they still believed his story in the first week of December.

How many non sequesters can you string together in one post, thatís what Iíd like to know.

caz
12-06-2017, 04:31 AM
The police didn’t know the significance of stalking behavior back then.

LOL! So Hutch, knowing the police wouldn't recognise the phenomenon, came forward and felt able to describe it, as it applied to his own behaviour?

Have you had an early Christmas tipple? ;)

And if you don’t think following a woman around, watching what she was doing with other people, following her to her house, and waiting and watching her house for the better part of an hour in the middle of the night than I can’t help you.

But I thought the argument was that he did no such thing! LOL again! So was he stalking Kelly and watching who she picked up with that night? Or was he in the court on a murder mission and saw no other man in her company? Or was he making it all up and therefore not stalking anyone?

The police either saw nothing suspicious, or even that unusual about such behaviour or they concluded he had made it all up just for jolly. Had they thought for one second that Hutch's behaviour was a bit "weird", they'd have been all over it like a rash.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-06-2017, 04:47 AM
What a coincidence that hutch ends his little vigil shortly before the screams of murder are heard and then walks about for the rest of the night.

Thatís some alibi.

Well if he was making it all up he presumably learned about the screams of murder and when they were heard, and fashioned his story and departure time to fit.

If he ended his vigil, not by leaving the court, but by entering the room and causing those screams, he was a very silly sausage to come forward, to put it mildly. Why take a chance on the police being such total dickheads? Why take a chance on no nosey insomniac spotting him lurking, then entering the room, then hearing Kelly scream?

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-06-2017, 05:16 AM
if that were the case and they have a confession he lied, wasn't here, verified by other witnesses... then that probably would have been enough to charge him with lying.

Hi Abby,

How many witnesses/people confessing to the murders etc were charged with lying? Any idea?

We may presume Hutch wasn't charged with lying, in which case the police either didn't think he lied, or had no evidence that he lied, or didn't think his lies were serious enough for a prosecution to succeed - for instance if it was proved he was merely elsewhere and so couldn't have been involved.

Had they believed he lied, but not about being in the vicinity of the murder that night, evidence wouldn't have come into it. They'd have grilled him til his eyes popped.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-06-2017, 05:20 AM
How many non sequesters can you string together in one post, that’s what I’d like to know.

What's a non 'sequester' when it's at home?? That's what I'd like to know.

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
12-06-2017, 06:27 AM
What's a non 'sequester' when it's at home?? That's what I'd like to know.

Love,

Caz
X

Sorry I meant to say non sequitur.

Abby Normal
12-06-2017, 06:37 AM
LOL! So Hutch, knowing the police wouldn't recognise the phenomenon, came forward and felt able to describe it, as it applied to his own behaviour?

Have you had an early Christmas tipple? ;)



But I thought the argument was that he did no such thing! LOL again! So was he stalking Kelly and watching who she picked up with that night? Or was he in the court on a murder mission and saw no other man in her company? Or was he making it all up and therefore not stalking anyone?

The police either saw nothing suspicious, or even that unusual about such behaviour or they concluded he had made it all up just for jolly. Had they thought for one second that Hutch's behaviour was a bit "weird", they'd have been all over it like a rash.

Love,

Caz
X

HI Caz

LOL! So Hutch, knowing the police wouldn't recognise the phenomenon, came forward and felt able to describe it, as it applied to his own behaviour?


basically yes, he had to account for why he was there.

Have you had an early Christmas tipple? ;)


yes.

But I thought the argument was that he did no such thing! LOL again! So was he stalking Kelly and watching who she picked up with that night? Or was he in the court on a murder mission and saw no other man in her company? Or was he making it all up and therefore not stalking anyone?
either or Caz, it really dosnt matter. whether he was just an attention seeker or her killer, he engaged in stalking behavior.

The police either saw nothing suspicious, or even that unusual about such behaviour or they concluded he had made it all up just for jolly. Had they thought for one second that Hutch's behaviour was a bit "weird", they'd have been all over it like a rash.


they concluded he had made it all up just for jolly.

probably this

Wickerman
12-06-2017, 02:42 PM
Iím not assuming anything. They didnít find an alibi, because he didnít have one.
And the only thing based on supposition, as you say, is that they found one.

And you know he didn't give Abberline an alibi in that interrogation, ...because?

Abby Normal
12-06-2017, 03:30 PM
And you know he didn't give Abberline an alibi in that interrogation, ...because?

Because walking around all night by yourself is not an alibi.

Wickerman
12-06-2017, 05:50 PM
Because walking around all night by yourself is not an alibi.

But haven't "we", you & me, both agreed, Hutch was never a suspect, only a witness?

Since when does a witness need an alibi? obviously, the subject never came up.

caz
12-07-2017, 04:22 AM
HI Caz

basically yes, he had to account for why he was there.

Why? Nobody had placed him there, and if by some tiny chance he had heard all about what Sarah Lewis had said at the inquest by the time he presented himself at the cop shop, there'd have been an even tinier chance that she could have positively identified him if she saw him again. He only had to say she was mistaken. As has already been argued, he could say he had walked about all night and the police couldn't prove otherwise. Alternatively, if he really, truly believed Lewis could make trouble for him, he had no fixed abode so he could have left the area for good - which he may well have done in any case, at some point subsequent to his brief appearance in the limelight.

If he wasn't even there, and was just an attention seeker, he didn't have to account for anything.

either or Caz, it really dosnt matter. whether he was just an attention seeker or her killer, he engaged in stalking behavior.

What? If he was just an attention seeker and made it all up, he made up his own stalking behaviour, which is even odder than admitting to it if true!

No more Christmas tipple for you, my lad.

Love,

Caz
X

Michael W Richards
12-07-2017, 04:44 AM
You were addressing Abby's post, Michael, not mine. I don't really buy the 'stalker' accusation. We only have Hutch's own words for what he was doing, and the police didn't appear to get the impression that he had been indulging in stalking behaviour and was now choosing to volunteer that information. :rolleyes2:

Love,

Caz
X

My apologies Caz, and to Abby.

If you would read again my suggestion that Hutchs statement created the illusion at least that the man watching the courtyard, the one that is partly if not fully responsible for the Accomplices issuance on Saturday afternoon, was actually a friend of Marys. Just keeping an eye on her.

I don't think we can say Hutch was cleared, he was never openly investigated to our knowledge. May be lost files, maybe not. But the point is that his account makes Wideawake benign. Something he wasnt on Saturday.

Abby Normal
12-07-2017, 04:50 AM
Why? Nobody had placed him there, and if by some tiny chance he had heard all about what Sarah Lewis had said at the inquest by the time he presented himself at the cop shop, there'd have been an even tinier chance that she could have positively identified him if she saw him again. He only had to say she was mistaken. As has already been argued, he could say he had walked about all night and the police couldn't prove otherwise. Alternatively, if he really, truly believed Lewis could make trouble for him, he had no fixed abode so he could have left the area for good - which he may well have done in any case, at some point subsequent to his brief appearance in the limelight.

If he wasn't even there, and was just an attention seeker, he didn't have to account for anything.



What? If he was just an attention seeker and made it all up, he made up his own stalking behaviour, which is even odder than admitting to it if true!

No more Christmas tipple for you, my lad.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz
Whether he was just an attention seeker or the killer, he still engaged in stalking behavior. Lewis corroborates it as he was the waiting watching man by his own admission. He didnít need to hear about Lewis testimony from inquest, since he was there he knew she had spotted him.

Chava
12-07-2017, 09:27 AM
Admittedly I havenít looked at every paper but I have looked at quite a few. And it seems that no journalist spent any time interviewing Hutch after he left the cops. Itís not like they didnít know who he was or what he claimed, but they didnít try and get a story. Clearly The Daily Telegraph didnít believe him as they point out the dissimilarity between Astrakhan Man and the other descriptions and cast some shade there. Given he was Ďthe last person to see Mary Jane Kelly aliveí Iíd have thought some enterprising journo would have pitched him a few quid for a story. Especially since he hadnít given it all up for free at the inquest as Mary Ann Cox had. I do find this strange. I think Abberline might have changed his mind re Hutchís reliability and let the press know that.

Wickerman
12-07-2017, 03:35 PM
Admittedly I havenít looked at every paper but I have looked at quite a few. And it seems that no journalist spent any time interviewing Hutch after he left the cops.

Not sure what you mean here, have you read this interview?
(nearly half way down the page)
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881114.html

The interview was taken by the Central News, and various dailies published this interview - the above being only one example.

caz
12-11-2017, 07:39 AM
My apologies Caz, and to Abby.

If you would read again my suggestion that Hutchs statement created the illusion at least that the man watching the courtyard, the one that is partly if not fully responsible for the Accomplices issuance on Saturday afternoon, was actually a friend of Marys. Just keeping an eye on her.

I don't think we can say Hutch was cleared, he was never openly investigated to our knowledge. May be lost files, maybe not. But the point is that his account makes Wideawake benign. Something he wasnt on Saturday.

Hi Michael,

But Hutch wasn't 'just keeping an eye on' Kelly, according to his own account. Very far from it. His eye was wholly kept on the man she had picked up with, according to his claimed ability to describe him down to the last tiny detail. His excuse for waiting 45 minutes in the vicinity was not to keep an eye on Kelly at all, but to see the man again, for no stated reason apart from idle curiosity. Hutch said he gave up waiting and walked off, apparently with no desire to see how Kelly was doing. In fact he claimed afterwards to have had no suspicions that the man might pose any danger to Kelly. Whether the man had emerged or not, Hutch would have needed to go into that room himself in order to 'keep an eye on' Kelly and see if she was sleeping peacefully, in danger of choking on her vomit or ripped up to shreds.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-11-2017, 07:49 AM
Hi caz
Whether he was just an attention seeker or the killer, he still engaged in stalking behavior. Lewis corroborates it as he was the waiting watching man by his own admission. He didn’t need to hear about Lewis testimony from inquest, since he was there he knew she had spotted him.

Right, I get you now, Abby. I was assuming that when you allowed for Hutch being 'just an attention seeker', you allowed for him not actually being there at all.

I do wonder what kind of mentality he'd have had to come forward 'just' to seek attention, by admitting to what you call stalking behaviour, if he was genuinely there and had been seen lurking near the crime scene by a witness! There's a fine line between bravado and sheer stupidity.

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
12-11-2017, 08:30 AM
Right, I get you now, Abby. I was assuming that when you allowed for Hutch being 'just an attention seeker', you allowed for him not actually being there at all.

I do wonder what kind of mentality he'd have had to come forward 'just' to seek attention, by admitting to what you call stalking behaviour, if he was genuinely there and had been seen lurking near the crime scene by a witness! There's a fine line between bravado and sheer stupidity.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz
yes, I agree, and especially if he was the killer! But I don't see it as ruling him out whether he was just an attention seeker or the killer.

gun to head, I would say more than likely he was just an attention seeker. But I would also say Aman story was a lie.

There are multiple scenarios that could have happened, but to me the most likely is that Hutch was looking for a place to crash and/or hook up with mary, never actually saw her that night, and waited/watched for her (this is where Lewis saw him) either for her to be finished with her guest (probably Blotchy) or less likely, if not home, for her return.

at the bottom of the list of likelihood scenarios, for me, is that his story was pretty much accurate as told, especially the Aman story. that part IMHO is a lie.

caz
12-13-2017, 05:07 AM
There are multiple scenarios that could have happened, but to me the most likely is that Hutch was looking for a place to crash and/or hook up with mary, never actually saw her that night, and waited/watched for her (this is where Lewis saw him) either for her to be finished with her guest (probably Blotchy) or less likely, if not home, for her return.

That works for me too, Abby. Hutch may have been understandably reluctant to admit to the above and therefore gave an account which involved someone else 'hooking' up with Kelly. He couldn't say that the man he described looked sinister, or he'd have looked really bad for giving up and walking away after 45 minutes without checking she was okay.

What I still don't buy is that Abberline wouldn't have winkled more out of Hutch about his real reasons for waiting there that long. A simple desire to see the man again just doesn't wash. He had supposedly drunk in every last inch of him the first time! There had to be more to it, whether he had intended to mug the man, or share Kelly's room when she was alone again, or both.

Love,

Caz
X

Herlock Sholmes
12-13-2017, 07:15 AM
I’ve always been suspicious of Hutchinson as a witness. The phrase ‘too good to be true’ comes to mind. The part about him stooping down to look into Astrakhan Man’s face doesn’t ring true for me. It’s not a normal thing to do by anyone’s standards. Combine that with the highly detailed description he gave gives me the impression of someone trying too hard to convince that he knew exactly what the ripper looked like. Thoughts of a being ‘the man who knows what the ripper looked like’ would be a tempting incentive to tell a few undisprovable porkies. If he was telling the truth then we surely must consider AM as an unlikely Jack. It’s hard to see the ripper going on to kill Mary after being scrutinised so closely whilst in her company.

Michael W Richards
12-13-2017, 07:39 AM
But that is modern guesswork. We have no written record of any investigation into Hutchinson's movements.
So the chance they may have been able to corroborate his story is purely 50/50, maybe yes, maybe no.
The point is, they still believed his story in the first week of December.

The fact that we have no investigation data does suggest they took this statement at face value, and the subsequent reposition of A man vs Blotchy as the "suspect of interest" that week suggests they did investigate his suspect. The mention of him later in December is contrasted by the report the same week as the statement that they came to disbelieve his story Jon. The December mention of him has as much investigative value as the reports that Israels suspect was still viable long after the Inquest. Which is little to none. Clearly, by the lack of any evidence that would suggest, infer or allude to Israels story being relevant to the matter at hand dealt with at the Inquest, his suspect was not of any importance to the investigation.

Because someone offers a later opinion on the viability of witness's suspect sighting long after that suspects sighting is being used in the active investigation doesn't mean it holds any water. The existing records discount those assertions.

Hutch's suspect was discarded that same week, and Israels suspect was never considered as viable in the formal documentation of the Inquest. Interesting that in both cases....no-one saw or identified them as being there at all, no-one corroborates their stories, and both came in after the fact, being totally unknown to the police at that time.

In Hutchs case, his statement turned the lurking wideawake into a friend looking out for the victim, and Israels story leads one to believe that he saw the woman with her anti semetic killer being physical off the property she is found on... minutes before she is killed, in essence exonerating the Jewish population still onsite.

Both stories have the fortuitous angle covered in spades. I exonerates the potential Accomplice, surely the source of the Pardon issuance Saturday, and one story exonerates jewish anarchists belonging to a club of assumed low esteem by the neighbors and police.

rjpalmer
12-13-2017, 09:18 AM
There had to be more to it

Hi Caz,

I wonder how many Ripperologists have actually spent a night on the streets? Precious few, I imagine, or they wouldn't find Hutchinson's behavior so suspicious.

The only thing Hutchinson was killing was time. He missed his curfew and was now stuck on the street for a tedious six hours...waiting waiting waiting for the sun to come up.

Standing across from Millers Court for 45 mintues?

Big deal. The building had an awning on it. It was November and spitting rain off and on. A perfect place to stand.

Further, he had just seen Kelly with an obviously wealthy client. If she was suddenly 'in clover' he knows--or hopes--he can borrow a few p when the coffee stalls open back up.

It's really not all that hard to figure out, is it?

That's what he is telling Abbeline. He doesn't need to spell it out. He lent HER a few pence on occasion, and now he wants some in return. Surely this toff will pay well. And tomorrow is Lord Mayor's Day, after all. No one is more 'into' these civic holidays than the abject poor who have nothing else to look forward to. It would be simply too bloody tomorrow if he can't scrounge up enough for a pint or a pinch of tobacco.

So, with nothing else better to do, he waits.

People in the lowest 'strata' have a sort of informal 'code' of borrowing and scrounging to help each other out. And there was probably no worse scrounge than the unemployed male in the East End who must have been forever trying to squeeze the 'unfortunates' who had one sure way of coming up with 3 p.

Abberline wasn't the least bit suspicious because he shouldn't have been. H Division was his turf for years and he knew it all too well.

And yes, of course, in the back of his mind, if the rain turned really bad, Hutch was hoping in his heart of hearts that he might spend a couple of hours indoors with a not bad looking Irish prostitute.

Nothing unusual about any of it. Except the client.

Abby Normal
12-13-2017, 09:31 AM
Hi Caz,

I wonder how many Ripperologists have actually spent a night on the streets? Precious few, I imagine, or they wouldn't find Hutchinson's behavior so suspicious.

The only thing Hutchinson was killing was time. He missed his curfew and was now stuck on the street for a tedious six hours...waiting waiting waiting for the sun to come up.

Standing across from Millers Court for 45 mintues?

Big deal. The building had an awning on it. It was November and spitting rain off and on. A perfect place to stand.

Further, he had just seen Kelly with an obviously wealthy client. If she was suddenly 'in clover' he knows--or hopes--he can borrow a few p when the coffee stalls open back up.

It's really not all that hard to figure out, is it?

That's what he is telling Abbeline. He doesn't need to spell it out. He lent HER a few pence on occasion, and now he wants some in return. Surely this toff will pay well. And tomorrow is Lord Mayor's Day, after all. No one is more 'into' these civic holidays than the abject poor who have nothing else to look forward to. It would be simply too bloody tomorrow if he can't scrounge up enough for a pint or a pinch of tobacco.

So, with nothing else better to do, he waits.

People in the lowest 'strata' have a sort of informal 'code' of borrowing and scrounging to help each other out. And there was probably no worse scrounge than the unemployed male in the East End who must have been forever trying to squeeze the 'unfortunates' who had one sure way of coming up with 3 p.

Abberline wasn't the least bit suspicious because he shouldn't have been. H Division was his turf for years and he knew it all too well.

And yes, of course, in the back of his mind, if the rain turned really bad, Hutch was hoping in his heart of hearts that he might spend a couple of hours indoors with a not bad looking Irish prostitute.

Nothing unusual about any of it. Except the client.

Hi RJ
Interesting post and good insight. The last sentence was rather cryptic though. Care to expound?

Robert St Devil
12-13-2017, 10:30 AM
Considering her supposed lengthy absence and recent return to the oldest profession, would Hutch have known Mary Jane to be a prostitute? Would it have surprised him to see Mary Jane out "walking the streets" with strange men since she had been with Barnett only a week prior? I would've expected one of the questions asked of Hutchinson by the police was whether or not she solicited him.

Varqm
12-13-2017, 10:37 AM
Hi Caz,

I wonder how many Ripperologists have actually spent a night on the streets? Precious few, I imagine, or they wouldn't find Hutchinson's behavior so suspicious.

The only thing Hutchinson was killing was time. He missed his curfew and was now stuck on the street for a tedious six hours...waiting waiting waiting for the sun to come up.

Standing across from Millers Court for 45 mintues?

Big deal. The building had an awning on it. It was November and spitting rain off and on. A perfect place to stand.

Further, he had just seen Kelly with an obviously wealthy client. If she was suddenly 'in clover' he knows--or hopes--he can borrow a few p when the coffee stalls open back up.

It's really not all that hard to figure out, is it?

That's what he is telling Abbeline. He doesn't need to spell it out. He lent HER a few pence on occasion, and now he wants some in return. Surely this toff will pay well. And tomorrow is Lord Mayor's Day, after all. No one is more 'into' these civic holidays than the abject poor who have nothing else to look forward to. It would be simply too bloody tomorrow if he can't scrounge up enough for a pint or a pinch of tobacco.

So, with nothing else better to do, he waits.

People in the lowest 'strata' have a sort of informal 'code' of borrowing and scrounging to help each other out. And there was probably no worse scrounge than the unemployed male in the East End who must have been forever trying to squeeze the 'unfortunates' who had one sure way of coming up with 3 p.

Abberline wasn't the least bit suspicious because he shouldn't have been. H Division was his turf for years and he knew it all too well.

And yes, of course, in the back of his mind, if the rain turned really bad, Hutch was hoping in his heart of hearts that he might spend a couple of hours indoors with a not bad looking Irish prostitute.

Nothing unusual about any of it. Except the client.

And if his story was a lie,or recanted it was the wrong day, the worst they could accuse him was he was a nuisance,after all there was no law - only in
courts, and it was not unusual, he'll be considered like the rest of the witnessess who reported "suspicious" men or the drunk or two? who came to the station and proclaim they were the murderer - "helpful"/nuisance witnesses were part of the murder series.Think about it,if Hutch was an upstanding person,his Romford visit,etc. checked out to be true,the Astakhan man was not going to be a prime suspect?,the last man seen entering Kelly's room an hour before the 4:00 AM. estimated murder time.And Hutch a prime witness?, his sighting was 15 minutes long,the rest of the witnessess
arguably only 10-15-30 seconds.
It's clear in the end (up to the year the case was closed) the police did not believe him.Even Dew remembered it as such and nobody remembered Astra man as a prime suspect.
Abberline made a mistake in believing Hutch - it would have been the 1st time a detective made a mistake,even today with polygraph tests.

Joshua Rogan
12-13-2017, 11:55 AM
It's clear in the end (up to the year the case was closed) the police did not believe him.Even Dew remembered it as such and nobody remembered Astra man as a prime suspect.

Just to add, Dew didn't think Hutchinson was lying, but concluded he was mistaken about the date of his sighting;

"But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong."

Abby Normal
12-13-2017, 12:47 PM
Just to add, Dew didn't think Hutchinson was lying, but concluded he was mistaken about the date of his sighting;

"But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong."

Hi JR
I can see how he would have thought Maxwell was wrong, as TOD and the screams of murder were in the middle of the night. But why should he suspect hutch was wrong? he saw a suspicious person with her in the middle of the night.

Abby Normal
12-13-2017, 12:49 PM
And if his story was a lie,or recanted it was the wrong day, the worst they could accuse him was he was a nuisance,after all there was no law - only in
courts, and it was not unusual, he'll be considered like the rest of the witnessess who reported "suspicious" men or the drunk or two? who came to the station and proclaim they were the murderer - "helpful"/nuisance witnesses were part of the murder series.Think about it,if Hutch was an upstanding person,his Romford visit,etc. checked out to be true,the Astakhan man was not going to be a prime suspect?,the last man seen entering Kelly's room an hour before the 4:00 AM. estimated murder time.And Hutch a prime witness?, his sighting was 15 minutes long,the rest of the witnessess
arguably only 10-15-30 seconds.
It's clear in the end (up to the year the case was closed) the police did not believe him.Even Dew remembered it as such and nobody remembered Astra man as a prime suspect.
Abberline made a mistake in believing Hutch - it would have been the 1st time a detective made a mistake,even today with polygraph tests.

bingo!

Joshua Rogan
12-13-2017, 02:25 PM
Hi JR
I can see how he would have thought Maxwell was wrong, as TOD and the screams of murder were in the middle of the night. But why should he suspect hutch was wrong? he saw a suspicious person with her in the middle of the night.

Beats me, Abby. You're dead right about Maxwell and TOD though, he goes on to say;

"Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, 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. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man."

Perhaps like us he was just trying to rationalise the initial police belief in the suspect with the subsequent seeming abandonment of him as a suspect?

Abby Normal
12-13-2017, 02:58 PM
Beats me, Abby. You're dead right about Maxwell and TOD though, he goes on to say;

"Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, 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. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man."

Perhaps like us he was just trying to rationalise the initial police belief in the suspect with the subsequent seeming abandonment of him as a suspect?

Yeah. And also that blotchy was the killer.

Wickerman
12-13-2017, 03:14 PM
I don't figure why Hutchinson would be hovering around Millers Court "looking for somewhere to crash"?
It was only after he left the court, around 3:00 am, that he found his "regular place" was closed.
That must indicate he wasn't looking for a place to stay the night before he left the court - he thought he had one.

Wickerman
12-13-2017, 03:21 PM
What I still don't buy is that Abberline wouldn't have winkled more out of Hutch about his real reasons for waiting there that long. A simple desire to see the man again just doesn't wash. He had supposedly drunk in every last inch of him the first time! There had to be more to it, whether he had intended to mug the man, or share Kelly's room when she was alone again, or both.

Love,

Caz
X

You're quite right Caz, that question along with a few others.
This is what Abberline would have pursued in the interrogation, which came later.
The statement he gave at 6:00 pm on Monday night is only Hutchinson's initial story. This statement would have been used by Abberline later in the evening when he interrogated/interviewed Hutchinson. We only wish the written record of these exchanges had survived, it would answer so many questions.

Wickerman
12-13-2017, 03:33 PM
Considering her supposed lengthy absence and recent return to the oldest profession, would Hutch have known Mary Jane to be a prostitute? Would it have surprised him to see Mary Jane out "walking the streets" with strange men since she had been with Barnett only a week prior? I would've expected one of the questions asked of Hutchinson by the police was whether or not she solicited him.

I tend to think that was the reason Kelly was asking him for 6d, she was propositioning Hutchinson. When Hutch made reference to this he watered it down to her only wanting to borrow 6d.

MysterySinger
12-13-2017, 04:03 PM
Still can't get past the thought that Richard Blake and George Hutchinson could have been one and the same (see separate thread).

But as for Maxwell, I think she was mistaken as to who she saw that morning, and the most likely person was Elizabeth Prater. Articles have shown that she and Kelly may have looked similar. Maxwell had known "Kelly" for 4 months, the same length of time Prater had lived in Miller's Court. Early reports seemed to indicate that the victim lived upstairs.

Wickerman
12-13-2017, 04:05 PM
Think about it,if Hutch was an upstanding person,his Romford visit,etc. checked out to be true,the Astakhan man was not going to be a prime suspect?,

Tell me, if Mrs Long was an upstanding woman, what happened to her 'suspect', the "shabby-genteel foreigner"?

What happened to Schwartz's 'suspect', the "broad-shouldered man"?

What happened to Lawende's 'suspect', the "red-neckerchief-man"?

Then of course we still have Mary Cox, so what happened to "Blotchy"?

C'mon Varqm, if you think the police lost interest in Hutchinson & his suspect because they make no further mention of him, then explain why Lawende, Schwartz, Long & Cox are no longer mentioned either.

Did they lose interest in all their suspects, or were the other witnesses liars too?
Then, they secretly believed some nobody called Kozminski was the killer, without a shred of evidence, or an established sighting?

Wickerman
12-13-2017, 07:37 PM
The fact that we have no investigation data does suggest they took this statement at face value,...

Michael.
You appear to believe there are no missing police files. Do you seriously believe that what exists today is all the paperwork that there was in this case?

.....and the subsequent reposition of A man vs Blotchy as the "suspect of interest" that week suggests they did investigate his suspect.

What are you saying here?
A-man replaced Blotchy, therefore the police must have investigated A-man?
This contradicts your previous line, that they didn't investigate A-man.

The mention of him later in December is contrasted by the report the same week as the statement that they came to disbelieve his story Jon.

Who do you think the press were talking about when they wrote, on Nov. 19th, about the police being divided between Blotchy & A-man, them both being suspects?
Or, are you just ignoring that?

Because someone offers a later opinion on the viability of witness's suspect sighting long after that suspects sighting is being used in the active investigation doesn't mean it holds any water. The existing records discount those assertions.

How about providing some names to these vague assertions, it helps the reader follow what you are talking about.

Hutch's suspect was discarded that same week,

What week, when?

Michael W Richards
12-14-2017, 03:52 AM
Hi Jon,



Michael.You appear to believe there are no missing police files. Do you seriously believe that what exists today is all the paperwork that there was in this case?

I don't presume to know what is in any document that is missing Jon.

What are you saying here?
A-man replaced Blotchy, therefore the police must have investigated A-man?
This contradicts your previous line, that they didn't investigate A-man.

I'm saying that it would seem that they accepted the story he gave and the delightfully detailed suspect description, without us having any data to assess why they would do so, and that they did indeed investigate A man rather than following up on Blotchy. I was acknowledging that point. There is no suggestion in any known document that they investigated the witness and the rest of his story, i.e. Romford.


Who do you think the press were talking about when they wrote, on Nov. 19th, about the police being divided between Blotchy & A-man, them both being suspects?
Or, are you just ignoring that?

I believe on the 15th there is a press release that states the story is not being held in high esteem any longer, maybe this is when they concluded any investigation on him if there was one.


How about providing some names to these vague assertions, it helps the reader follow what you are talking about.

I thought you would recognize the reference to the story given by Israel Schwartz which is mentioned again weeks later I believe in the Police Gazette, neither of which makes any difference since neither Israel or his story apparently had any bearing on the question of who killed Liz Stride. Something which IS contradictory, if they believed him.

What week, when?

As I already mentioned, the same week he gave the story.



Regards Jon.

caz
12-14-2017, 05:11 AM
In Hutchs case, his statement turned the lurking wideawake into a friend looking out for the victim...

:wall:

No it didn't, Michael.

How in the name of sanity does waiting outside Kelly's room for 45 minutes, while God knows who is inside, doing God knows what to her, then leaving them to it and walking off into the night, add up to 'a friend looking out for the victim'?? :wacko:

Love,

Caz
X

Michael W Richards
12-14-2017, 05:17 AM
:wall:

No it didn't, Michael.

How in the name of sanity does waiting outside Kelly's room for 45 minutes, while God knows who is inside, doing God knows what to her, then leaving them to it and walking off into the night, add up to 'a friend looking out for the victim'?? :wacko:

Love,

Caz
X

Because Caz, the unknown stranger suddenly turned into a friend of Marys, someone who knew her for a few years, and someone who she felt she could approach for a few coins. The fact that he is hanging around could be construed as him wanting to be sure that Mary was in no danger from A man. That's where the comment came from. Perhaps that's the way it was perceived.

The fact he waited four days kind of negates that if so.

caz
12-14-2017, 05:27 AM
Hi Caz,

I wonder how many Ripperologists have actually spent a night on the streets? Precious few, I imagine, or they wouldn't find Hutchinson's behavior so suspicious.

The only thing Hutchinson was killing was time. He missed his curfew and was now stuck on the street for a tedious six hours...waiting waiting waiting for the sun to come up.

Standing across from Millers Court for 45 mintues?

Big deal. The building had an awning on it. It was November and spitting rain off and on. A perfect place to stand.

Further, he had just seen Kelly with an obviously wealthy client. If she was suddenly 'in clover' he knows--or hopes--he can borrow a few p when the coffee stalls open back up.

It's really not all that hard to figure out, is it?

That's what he is telling Abbeline. He doesn't need to spell it out. He lent HER a few pence on occasion, and now he wants some in return. Surely this toff will pay well. And tomorrow is Lord Mayor's Day, after all. No one is more 'into' these civic holidays than the abject poor who have nothing else to look forward to. It would be simply too bloody tomorrow if he can't scrounge up enough for a pint or a pinch of tobacco.

So, with nothing else better to do, he waits.

People in the lowest 'strata' have a sort of informal 'code' of borrowing and scrounging to help each other out. And there was probably no worse scrounge than the unemployed male in the East End who must have been forever trying to squeeze the 'unfortunates' who had one sure way of coming up with 3 p.

Abberline wasn't the least bit suspicious because he shouldn't have been. H Division was his turf for years and he knew it all too well.

And yes, of course, in the back of his mind, if the rain turned really bad, Hutch was hoping in his heart of hearts that he might spend a couple of hours indoors with a not bad looking Irish prostitute.

Nothing unusual about any of it. Except the client.

Hi rj,

I get all that. I really do. That's why I think Abberline wasn't suspicious. But Hutch didn't state that he waited there for 45 minutes 'because I had nothing better to do'. He stated that he 'stood there... to see if they came out. They did not so I went away'.

So the obvious question Abberline would have asked was: "Why did you want to see if they came out? What was it to you?" The woman in the case would be found horribly butchered in the morning. Why wouldn't Abberline have been interested in Hutch's interest in the couple?

Hutch's answer presumably gave Abberline the extra info he needed to satisfy himself that his given reason made perfect sense.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-14-2017, 06:02 AM
Because Caz, the unknown stranger suddenly turned into a friend of Marys, someone who knew her for a few years, and someone who she felt she could approach for a few coins. The fact that he is hanging around could be construed as him wanting to be sure that Mary was in no danger from A man. That's where the comment came from. Perhaps that's the way it was perceived.

The fact he waited four days kind of negates that if so.

I'm really sorry, Michael, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Unknown stranger?

How could Hutch possibly have implied he was making sure Kelly was in no danger from the man inside the room with her while Hutch was outside - until he got fed up waiting to see if they came out and pushed off with no attempt to check if she was alive or dead? What's more, he actually said the man gave him no cause to fear for Kelly's safety. It doesn't get any clearer, Michael. Hutch was not claiming to have been Kelly's guardian angel, and didn't imagine she needed one.

Love,

Caz
X

Herlock Sholmes
12-14-2017, 06:15 AM
Do we just accept that Hutchinson was telling the truth about knowing Mary and that he occasionally gave her money? Or was he just a sad neíer-do-well trying to, simultaneously, gain kudos by Ďseeingí the ripper and paint himself as the generous benefactor?

Abby Normal
12-14-2017, 06:34 AM
Do we just accept that Hutchinson was telling the truth about knowing Mary and that he occasionally gave her money? Or was he just a sad ne’er-do-well trying to, simultaneously, gain kudos by ‘seeing’ the ripper and paint himself as the generous benefactor?

HI HS
well both, but he didn't make the story up from whole cloth, He knew her. he was there waiting and watching for her. but I don't think he saw her that night, and Aman is definitely made up.

Abby Normal
12-14-2017, 06:45 AM
Tell me, if Mrs Long was an upstanding woman, what happened to her 'suspect', the "shabby-genteel foreigner"?

What happened to Schwartz's 'suspect', the "broad-shouldered man"?

What happened to Lawende's 'suspect', the "red-neckerchief-man"?

Then of course we still have Mary Cox, so what happened to "Blotchy"?

C'mon Varqm, if you think the police lost interest in Hutchinson & his suspect because they make no further mention of him, then explain why Lawende, Schwartz, Long & Cox are no longer mentioned either.

Did they lose interest in all their suspects, or were the other witnesses liars too?
Then, they secretly believed some nobody called Kozminski was the killer, without a shred of evidence, or an established sighting?

Hi Wick
none of those witnesses got nearly a good a view as Hutch. and cox and lawende didn't even hear the man speak, long and Schwartz only heard him speak one word.

Hutch followed his man, heard him speak extensively, got a great description, down to his spats and horseshoe pin, even the mans religion, said he thinks hes seen him before and knows the area where he lives!

hutch should be best witness by far and Aman should be suspect number one.

and yet none of the police later give his man any credence and neither do we.

Because his story is bullshit and everyone knows it.

rjpalmer
12-14-2017, 06:49 AM
It was only after he left the court, around 3:00 am, that he found his "regular place" was closed.

I don't see it that way.

Here is what Hutchinson said:

"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

But surely that doesn't mean to say he just now realizes (at 3 a.m.) that the Victoria W. M.'s Home was closed?

I don't see it. These were his usual digs; 'closed' means 'curfew,' and he would have known the curfew. Half-way from Romford he already knew he was 'screwed,' and this is confirmed when, reaching the East End, he hears the clock strike 2 a.m. Hence he loiters in Fashion & Dean & environs until 3 a.m. and then wanders around until daybreak, because, he states, "the place where I usually sleep was closed." (Almost an afterthought after explaining the entire night's movements). That's how I've always read it.

Hi Caz,

Same answer as above. Yes, pragmatically, George DID indeed state that his motive for loitering was 'to see the man come out.' True, but isn't curiosity entirely relative? The way I see it, George could have been curious (mildly) because he had "nothing better to do." In other words, we are both right. If George was interested, it was only because there was a handy awning, he already missed his kip, he might yet get lucky.

I think Abberline could understand that logic.

Abbey: I must remain cryptic. This has been pointed out before, but Abberline states in his report to his superiors that he "interrogated" Hutchinson--not that he interviewed him. What does that imply? Well, for one, that Frederick is not the dupe he is usually purported to be.

Sam Flynn
12-14-2017, 07:02 AM
What's more, he actually said the man gave him no cause to fear for Kelly's safety.
Which doesn't quite square with his rather creepy description of Astrakhan Man - "he looked at me stern", "very surly looking", "Jewish/foreign appearance", "small parcel with a kind of strap around it", etc. This at the height of the Ripper scare, and Hutch thought this guy was nothing to worry about? Hard to believe.

Sam Flynn
12-14-2017, 07:11 AM
Do we just accept that Hutchinson was telling the truth about knowing Mary and that he occasionally gave her money?
He claimed that he'd known Kelly for five years, which - if her biography has any grains of truth in it - is difficult to believe in itself, as she apparently had only moved to London 4 years previously. That aside, we can say with some confidence that she'd only arrived in Spitalfields within the last two years, prior to which she'd lived at Stepney and around the Ratcliff Highway. To my mind it's rather unlikely that Hutchinson's trajectory took him to those places at the same time as Kelly and that, at best, he was likely exaggerating the length of their acquaintance; at worst, he made it up in order to make his encounter with her, and the subsequent interest he took in her liaison with Astrakhan Man, seem more plausible.

caz
12-14-2017, 07:14 AM
Hi Caz,

Same answer as above. Yes, pragmatically, George DID indeed state that his motive for loitering was 'to see the man come out.' True, but isn't curiosity entirely relative? The way I see it, George could have been curious (mildly) because he had "nothing better to do." In other words, we are both right. If George was interested, it was only because there was a handy awning, he already missed his kip, he might yet get lucky.

I think Abberline could understand that logic.

Abbey: I must remain cryptic. This has been pointed out before, but Abberline states in his report to his superiors that he "interrogated" Hutchinson--not that he interviewed him. What does that imply? Well, for one, that Frederick is not the dupe he is usually purported to be.

No, he is not that dupe, rj, but more than that he had a tongue in his head and didn't need to try and understand Hutch's logic. He had him there and merely had to ask the question we can't: "So, George, were you waiting to see if the man with the murdered woman would come out again because you were mildly curious and had nothing better to do? Or were you hoping to 'get lucky' and, if so, how so?"

However the response was couched, Abberline professed himself happy with it.

Love,

Caz
X

rjpalmer
12-14-2017, 07:16 AM
Hard to believe.

I don't know. Maybe my ears are keen to it because I'm not British, but when I read contemporary trial proceedings or inquest reports in The Times or some other London paper, it seems like it was almost pulling teeth for the average British "lower class" (ahem) witness to say something bad about the "accused."

"But, my lady, did not your husband beat your child every night? Did not you fear he would murder it?"

"O, he had a terrible temper, sir, and sent us limping to the infirmary many a time, but no, sir, he wouldn't hurt a fly, and never did I fear it."

I come across it all the time.

Sam Flynn
12-14-2017, 07:29 AM
"But, my lady, did not your husband beat your child every night? Did not you fear he would murder it?"

"O, he had a terrible temper, sir, and sent us limping to the infirmary many a time, but no, sir, he wouldn't hurt a fly, and never did I fear it."

I come across it all the time.
I daresay, RJ, but here we have a shifty-looking "forriner" consorting with a street-walker in the heart of Ripper country and in the middle of the Ripper scare. Why did Hutchinson really take such an interest in this man, and pay so much detailed attention to him, if he had not sensed that something was out of the ordinary?

To me, it doesn't quite stack up.

caz
12-14-2017, 07:40 AM
Which doesn't quite square with his rather creepy description of Astrakhan Man - "he looked at me stern", "very surly looking", "Jewish/foreign appearance", "small parcel with a kind of strap around it", etc. This at the height of the Ripper scare, and Hutch thought this guy was nothing to worry about? Hard to believe.

I agree, Gareth. But to be fair, Hutch was meant to be speaking with hindsight and giving a description of a potential suspect for Kelly's murder. I'm sure he's not the only witness who didn't suspect anything bad was about to happen until after the event, when they thought back and 'remembered' - or imagined - sinister details they hadn't picked up on at the time. The basic story has a ring of truth about it in a way. He couldn't have suspected anything, or he wouldn't have simply walked away, indifferent to Kelly's fate. So I do think it's entirely possible he never saw who was in the room with Kelly, but assumed she was just 'entertaining', which would explain why it didn't occur to him that it might be the ripper until he heard about the murder, and then he thought it wise to conjure up a suitably sinister 'guest' on the inside while he was only ever on the outside.

Love,

Caz
X

Joshua Rogan
12-14-2017, 07:56 AM
He claimed that he'd known Kelly for five years, which - if her biography has any grains of truth in it - is difficult to believe in itself, as she apparently had only moved to London 4 years previously. That aside, we can say with some confidence that she'd only arrived in Spitalfields within the last two years, prior to which she'd lived at Stepney and around the Ratcliff Highway. To my mind it's rather unlikely that Hutchinson's trajectory took him to those places at the same time as Kelly and that, at best, he was likely exaggerating the length of their acquaintance; at worst, he made it up in order to make his encounter with her, and the subsequent interest he took in her liaison with Astrakhan Man, seem more plausible.

Wasn't it Maurice Lewis who claimed to have known Kelly 5 years? According to Abberline's 12th Nov report, Hutchinson had known her for "about 3 years".
That said, most of your point stands.

Incidentally, Abberline also tells us the reason George gave for watching the pair;

"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

If Abberline had winkled a more convincing reason out of Hutchinson, I'm sure he'd have informed his superiors.

Abby Normal
12-14-2017, 08:03 AM
Which doesn't quite square with his rather creepy description of Astrakhan Man - "he looked at me stern", "very surly looking", "Jewish/foreign appearance", "small parcel with a kind of strap around it", etc. This at the height of the Ripper scare, and Hutch thought this guy was nothing to worry about? Hard to believe.

he even added the red hankercheif of sailor man and a dastardly curled up mustache to boot!

Abby Normal
12-14-2017, 08:12 AM
I daresay, RJ, but here we have a shifty-looking "forriner" consorting with a street-walker in the heart of Ripper country and in the middle of the Ripper scare. Why did Hutchinson really take such an interest in this man, and pay so much detailed attention to him, if he had not sensed that something was out of the ordinary?

To me, it doesn't quite stack up.

because Aman didn't really exist and Hutch apparent interest in him has to justify how he got such a great description of him.

Abby Normal
12-14-2017, 08:14 AM
I agree, Gareth. But to be fair, Hutch was meant to be speaking with hindsight and giving a description of a potential suspect for Kelly's murder. I'm sure he's not the only witness who didn't suspect anything bad was about to happen until after the event, when they thought back and 'remembered' - or imagined - sinister details they hadn't picked up on at the time. The basic story has a ring of truth about it in a way. He couldn't have suspected anything, or he wouldn't have simply walked away, indifferent to Kelly's fate. So I do think it's entirely possible he never saw who was in the room with Kelly, but assumed she was just 'entertaining', which would explain why it didn't occur to him that it might be the ripper until he heard about the murder, and then he thought it wise to conjure up a suitably sinister 'guest' on the inside while he was only ever on the outside.

Love,

Caz
X

hi Caz
the basic story does have a ring of truth to it, until Aman enters the scene!

Joshua Rogan
12-14-2017, 08:21 AM
I don't see it that way.

Here is what Hutchinson said:

"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

But surely that doesn't mean to say he just now realizes (at 3 a.m.) that the Victoria W. M.'s Home was closed?

I don't see it. These were his usual digs; 'closed' means 'curfew,' and he would have known the curfew. Half-way from Romford he already knew he was 'screwed,' and this is confirmed when, reaching the East End, he hears the clock strike 2 a.m. Hence he loiters in Fashion & Dean & environs until 3 a.m. and then wanders around until daybreak, because, he states, "the place where I usually sleep was closed." (Almost an afterthought after explaining the entire night's movements). That's how I've always read it.

Me too. Hutchinson had just passed the Victoria Home when he met Kelly, so was in the perfect position to know then whether or not he could sleep there that night.

Incidentally, I always assumed he left Dorset Street around 3am because the weather took a turn for the worse - Mrs Cox went back to her room at that time, and said it was raining hard (although the two events aren't necessarily linked, it always seemed to me like a good reason to get off the streets).
But if there was shelter where he was, leaving it to walk the streets makes less sense.

Harry D
12-14-2017, 08:21 AM
Don't forget, J. Best and John Gardner also described a well-dressed individual with a similar appearance to Astrakhan Man seen with Stride on the night of her murder.

Joshua Rogan
12-14-2017, 08:34 AM
For what it's worth, Dew's memoirs mention the well-dressed East End criminal gang from The Blind Beggar....presumably they weren't afraid to walk the streets of Spitalfields at night.

Sam Flynn
12-14-2017, 08:49 AM
But if there was shelter where he was, leaving it to walk the streets makes less sense.I daresay he could have crashed out in the arched passageway at the entrance to Miller's Court if he'd felt so inclined. That way, he could have found shelter from the elements AND kept an eye on Kelly's room at the same time. He might even have caught the killer as an added bonus ;)

Abby Normal
12-14-2017, 09:04 AM
Wasn't it Maurice Lewis who claimed to have known Kelly 5 years? According to Abberline's 12th Nov report, Hutchinson had known her for "about 3 years".
That said, most of your point stands.

Incidentally, Abberline also tells us the reason George gave for watching the pair;

"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

If Abberline had winkled a more convincing reason out of Hutchinson, I'm sure he'd have informed his superiors.

Hi JR
I think your right-hutch said he knew her for several or about three years.

I think this part of his story is true. to say you know someone who you really don't know at all is way to risky a lie to be found out. especially to say you've known them for at least a couple years.

too many things to bust you on that if not true.

Howver, I doubt he even saw her that night (but was there). but best liars weave elements of truth into there story.

Abby Normal
12-14-2017, 09:07 AM
I daresay he could have crashed out in the arched passageway at the entrance to Miller's Court if he'd felt so inclined. That way, he could have found shelter from the elements AND kept an eye on Kelly's room at the same time. He might even have caught the killer as an added bonus ;)

yup-its probably the real reason he was there looking for Mary that night-looking for a place to crash.

Sam Flynn
12-14-2017, 09:20 AM
yup-its probably the real reason he was there looking for Mary that night-looking for a place to crash.
If he was there at all, which I doubt. Like I suggested, what kind of idiot would wander the streets all night in the rain, having spent 45 minutes in or around a courtyard that had a covered passageway leading to it?

Robert St Devil
12-14-2017, 10:53 AM
Don't forget, J. Best and John Gardner also described a well-dressed individual with a similar appearance to Astrakhan Man seen with Stride on the night of her murder.

Excellent point!

Sam Flynn
12-14-2017, 11:04 AM
Don't forget, J. Best and John Gardner also described a well-dressed individual with a similar appearance to Astrakhan Man seen with Stride on the night of her murder.Respectably dressed, at any rate. Whether he had a similar appearance to Mr Astrakhan is hard to tell because, despite Best and Gardner having apparently spent some time standing in this man's vicinity - even exchanging some words with him - the sum total of B&G's combined testimony is nowhere near as detailed as George Hutchinson's.

Michael W Richards
12-14-2017, 12:39 PM
Which doesn't quite square with his rather creepy description of Astrakhan Man - "he looked at me stern", "very surly looking", "Jewish/foreign appearance", "small parcel with a kind of strap around it", etc. This at the height of the Ripper scare, and Hutch thought this guy was nothing to worry about? Hard to believe.

Thanks Sam, hard to believe someone didn't see that earlier. All he said was he watched, why he watched is up for grabs.....and the above does speak volumes. As I said earlier, his statement took someone unknown to everyone, in particular the Police....and made him someone Mary knew and was friendly with. None of which is substantiated by anyone.

Caz, had Hutchinson come forward with his statement on Friday night, would there have been a Pardon issuance for Accomplices on Saturday? I'm sure you know this is rhetorical. The answer is no.

rjpalmer
12-14-2017, 12:47 PM
Hi Abby. Don't buy it.

This Astrakhan man was so wildly improbable (?) that an Inspector with many years in H-Division--and thus a local knowledge that dwarfs the collective wisdom of three dozen Ripperologists--accepted him without irony, dozens of hardened journalists accepted him, and twice he was featured on the front of the Illustrated Police News without a single howl of laughter. Four years later some even had a name for him: Frederick Deeming.

https://blog.findmypast.com/ripper-series-part-one-the-murderous-mr-deeming-1406076318.html

Clearly, someone forgot to tell Freakish Fred (who dropped his aitches) that he was an 'ighly improbable dresser.

So what gives?

Only our impressions.

No, Mr. Astrakhan was not impossible nor improbable. The contemporaries knew their water; they swam in it. Mr. A only became impossible and improbable in the late 1980s when the 'profilers' took over--that and the exaggerated image of the East End as a relentless stage of continuous squalor and evil, so near and dear to the heart of Ripper historians.

I remember a line of a black comic in the U.S.; "go to the ghetto, step off the bus, gonna get stabbed."

[Hint: he didn't mean it: he was making fun of the exaggerated view of the ghetto, as viewed by affluent whites]. Imagine! Some toffs wander into the ghetto and don't even get killed!

Whitechapel Road 1868:

http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=22435

Q. Why does the artist include so many well-dressed dandies and dudes walking up Whitechapel Road?

Because, the fact is, the poorer areas of a city are ALWAYS filled with overdressed people: pimps, street gamblers, bully boys, those who like to lord over the impoverished, and even those who merely have the Jesse Jackson/Malcolm X dignity of "you can put me in the slums, but you can't put the slums in me."

Sometimes, the most overdressed man in the world is the man born in the slums--he has the most to prove.

If I was Fred Abberline I would be very worried that this particular man existed.

Abby Normal
12-14-2017, 01:09 PM
Hi Abby. Don't buy it.

This Astrakhan man was so wildly improbable (?) that an Inspector with many years in H-Division--and thus a local knowledge that dwarfs the collective wisdom of three dozen Ripperologists--accepted him without irony, dozens of hardened journalists accepted him, and twice he was featured on the front of the Illustrated Police News without a single howl of laughter. Four years later some even had a name for him: Frederick Deeming.

https://blog.findmypast.com/ripper-series-part-one-the-murderous-mr-deeming-1406076318.html

Clearly, someone forgot to tell Freakish Fred (who dropped his aitches) that he was an 'ighly improbable dresser.

So what gives?

Only our impressions.

No, Mr. Astrakhan was not impossible nor improbable. The contemporaries knew their water; they swam in it. Mr. A only became impossible and improbable in the late 1980s when the 'profilers' took over--that and the exaggerated image of the East End as a relentless stage of continuous squalor and evil, so near and dear to the heart of Ripper historians.

I remember a line of a black comic in the U.S.; "go to the ghetto, step off the bus, gonna get stabbed."

[Hint: he didn't mean it: he was making fun of the exaggerated view of the ghetto, as viewed by affluent whites]. Imagine! Some toffs wander into the ghetto and don't even get killed!

Whitechapel Road 1868:

http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=22435

Q. Why does the artist include so many well-dressed dandies and dudes walking up Whitechapel Road?

Because, the fact is, the poorer areas of a city are ALWAYS filled with overdressed people: pimps, street gamblers, bully boys, those who like to lord over the impoverished, and even those who merely have the Jesse Jackson/Malcolm X dignity of "you can put me in the slums, but you can't put the slums in me."

Sometimes, the most overdressed man in the world is the man born in the slums--he has the most to prove.

If I was Fred Abberline I would be very worried that this particular man existed.

so worried that later when explaining at length who his favored suspect was, George Chapman, he never mentions hutch or his suspect, despite the fact that chapman actually matched Amans description. and instead opts for the witnesses who saw the peaked cap man.

I don't doubt that someone of Amans appearance could have been in WC then, just hutchs ridiculous detailed description of him and the rest of the circs surrounding it.

Abby Normal
12-14-2017, 01:12 PM
If he was there at all, which I doubt. Like I suggested, what kind of idiot would wander the streets all night in the rain, having spent 45 minutes in or around a courtyard that had a covered passageway leading to it?

hi Sam
so you don't think he was waiting man as seen by Lewis?

Abby Normal
12-14-2017, 01:13 PM
Respectably dressed, at any rate. Whether he had a similar appearance to Mr Astrakhan is hard to tell because, despite Best and Gardner having apparently spent some time standing in this man's vicinity - even exchanging some words with him - the sum total of B&G's combined testimony is nowhere near as detailed as George Hutchinson's.

exactly. respectably dressed-not ostentatiously wealthy dressed

Sam Flynn
12-14-2017, 01:52 PM
hi Sam
so you don't think he was waiting man as seen by Lewis?
There was a large lodging-house directly opposite the entrance to Miller's Court, so it's not inconceivable that the man seen by Lewis was one of the lodgers, or perhaps a member of staff, who'd nipped outside for a breath of air.

Robert St Devil
12-14-2017, 03:25 PM
I thought this coat [the Moscow Wrapper] was an interesting suggestion for the coat "supposedly" worn by the "Astracan man". It seemed to be fashionable in the early 70s.

- Single-breasted Moscow Wrapper of brown Melton or Beaver. It is cut to hang rather full, the fronts close by a fly, and fasten up to the neck, and the sleeves are of the Pagoda form, wide at wrists. The collar is turned down all around, and is covered with black Astracan fur; all the edges of the coat, the bottom of the sleeves, and the breast pocket, are trimmed with bands of the same fur about two inches in width. [emphasis]

Sam Flynn
12-14-2017, 03:51 PM
I thought this coat [the Moscow Wrapper] was an interesting suggestion...
Jack the Wrapper! :)

Robert St Devil
12-14-2017, 03:52 PM
Jack the Wrapper! :)

couldn't resist, couldya Sam? :lol:

Wickerman
12-14-2017, 05:37 PM
Hi Jon,
Who do you think the press were talking about when they wrote, on Nov. 19th, about the police being divided between Blotchy & A-man, them both being suspects?
Or, are you just ignoring that?

I believe on the 15th there is a press release that states the story is not being held in high esteem any longer, maybe this is when they concluded any investigation on him if there was one.


Michael.

Here's the sequence of events.
- Nov. 12th, Hutchinson provides the police with a story.
- Nov. 13th, A brief outline of this story is published in the press.
Plus, the Central News interview Hutchinson at the Victoria Home, while the press report that the police are divided between two suspects - Astrachan & Blotchy.
- Nov 14th, the Central News interview with Hutchinson appears in the press, while his story is now "the subject of careful inquiry"(Echo).
- Nov. 15th, The story by Hutchinson is now discredited (Star).
- Nov. 16th, the 'Galloway' story appears where a constable claims to be looking for a man quite different in appearance to Blotchy.
- Nov. 19th, reports are published that the police are still divided between two suspects - Astrachan & Blotchy.

Now Michael, at what point, in your opinion, do the police seem to find a problem and loose interest in Hutchinson's story?

DJA
12-14-2017, 05:56 PM
Someone who died of syphilis.
Ardent supporter of horse racing .....

https://static.artuk.org/w1200h1200/NTIV/NTIV_CHAW_12662.jpg

Wickerman
12-14-2017, 05:56 PM
hutch should be best witness by far and Aman should be suspect number one.

and yet none of the police later give his man any credence and neither do we.



Yet, Abberline's 'pet' suspect undoubtedly was 'Respectable', with a strong Jewish Appearance.

He didn't get that from Long, Schwartz, Lawende or Cox. Only one witness offered that description.

Wickerman
12-14-2017, 06:53 PM
I don't see it that way.

Here is what Hutchinson said:

"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

But surely that doesn't mean to say he just now realizes (at 3 a.m.) that the Victoria W. M.'s Home was closed?

I don't see it. These were his usual digs; 'closed' means 'curfew,' and he would have known the curfew. Half-way from Romford he already knew he was 'screwed,' and this is confirmed when, reaching the East End, he hears the clock strike 2 a.m. Hence he loiters in Fashion & Dean & environs until 3 a.m. and then wanders around until daybreak, because, he states, "the place where I usually sleep was closed." (Almost an afterthought after explaining the entire night's movements). That's how I've always read it.


Hi RJ.

This part of Hutchinson's story you quoted, "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed", was provided in the Central News interview, not part of his police statement.

There is no dispute that this interview took place at the Victoria Home, yet he did not say "this place was closed", or "here, it was closed", so "his usual place" had to be some other address.

He does give the Victoria Home as his address on Monday in the police statement, but that does not mean he was staying there Thursday/Friday of the previous week.

There was a rule, it might be in the Common Lodging house Act of 1851, but all Common Lodging houses had to close while the common areas were cleaned. If I recall correctly it was between 2-3.00, but I would like to see the reference again to be sure.

The Lodginghouse keeper Wilkinson (Eddowes case) at Flower & Dean St., said he generally closed at 2:30 or 3:00, I suspect this is in recognition of the Act.

If Hutchinson was occupied with his sighting from 2:00 onwards, for the best part of the hour, then his "usual place" would close up before he left Millers Court.

This is why I say he only discovered that he had no place to stay after he left the court. It's an assumption based on some general rule, but it might explain his comment in his interview.

Wickerman
12-14-2017, 07:08 PM
He claimed that he'd known Kelly for five years, which - if her biography has any grains of truth in it - is difficult to believe in itself, as she apparently had only moved to London 4 years previously. That aside, we can say with some confidence that she'd only arrived in Spitalfields within the last two years, prior to which she'd lived at Stepney and around the Ratcliff Highway. To my mind it's rather unlikely that Hutchinson's trajectory took him to those places at the same time as Kelly and that, at best, he was likely exaggerating the length of their acquaintance; at worst, he made it up in order to make his encounter with her, and the subsequent interest he took in her liaison with Astrakhan Man, seem more plausible.

But Gareth, the truth is he claimed to have known Kelly for three years - which tends to blow a hole in your objection I suspect.

Joshua Rogan
12-14-2017, 07:09 PM
Hi RJ.

This part of Hutchinson's story you quoted, "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed", was provided in the Central News interview, not part of his police statement.

There is no dispute that this interview took place at the Victoria Home, yet he did not say "this place was closed", or "here, it was closed", so "his usual place" had to be some other address.

He does give the Victoria Home as his address on Monday in the police statement, but that does not mean he was staying there Thursday/Friday of the previous week.

But he does say "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning."

Not "went in". Doesn't this indicate that the place he's in now is the same place he entered in the morning, his usual place, ie the Victoria Home?

Wickerman
12-14-2017, 07:12 PM
he even added the red hankercheif of sailor man and a dastardly curled up mustache to boot!

Show me an adult Jew who didn't wear a black moustache - it was the fashion of the time.

Wickerman
12-14-2017, 07:20 PM
If he was there at all, which I doubt. Like I suggested, what kind of idiot would wander the streets all night in the rain, having spent 45 minutes in or around a courtyard that had a covered passageway leading to it?

No other witness mention rain - only Cox, and her statement doesn't jive with that given by Prater, who made no mention of rain, neither did Lewis, Kennedy or Bowyer who visited the water pump that morning.
So, it may not be wise to put your faith in the one solitary statement, especially when it seems to conflict with Praters.

Wickerman
12-14-2017, 07:31 PM
But he does say "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning."

Not "went in". Doesn't this indicate that the place he's in now is the same place he entered in the morning, his usual place, ie the Victoria Home?

Joshua.

Can you locate your reference?

This is what the interview says:
"I believe that he lives in the neighborhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat-lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain. Kelly did not seem to me to be drunk, but was a little bit spreeish. After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street. I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."
Star, Nov. 14, 1888.

Joshua Rogan
12-14-2017, 07:38 PM
Joshua.

Can you locate your reference?

Yes Jon, it's the Daily News 14th Nov.

Wickerman
12-14-2017, 07:55 PM
Yes Jon, it's the Daily News 14th Nov.

Hi Joshua.

There were several newspapers which carried the interview, amazingly, they are not the same (wonderful), The Times & Star do not include that line, yet others do.

Ok, lets say for arguments sake this was part of the interview.

"I came in as soon as it opened in the morning."

"IT" ?
where is "it"?

See how many times his interview uses the word "came", for instance he says:

"...as I came by Whitechapel Church"

He doesn't say, "I went by Whitechapel Church"

Also:

"... but not one came down Dorset street."

He didn't say, "but not one went down Dorset street".
This interview was not being conducted in Dorset street, agreed?

So I would think the use of "I came in" is not out of the ordinary for Hutchinson when talking about another address, plus he also says "as it opened", as if he is referring to somewhere else, again.

Joshua Rogan
12-14-2017, 09:35 PM
The Morning Advertiser 14th Nov describes the details of Hutchinson's statement but doesn't name him, instead saying "The name of the man who has given the information referred to to the police is purposely withheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety"

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

Is this the MA being overly cautious (since every other paper went ahead and named him), or was the name George Hutchinson an alias?

Joshua Rogan
12-14-2017, 09:39 PM
The Pall Mall Gazette 14th Nov has the Hutchinson statement, followed by this intriguing article;

"WHAT IS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT?
A paragraph in the morning papers states that the police have received from Mr. Samuel Osborne, wire worker, 20, Garden row, London road, a statement to the effect that he was walking along St. Paul's churchyard yesterday behind a respectably dressed man, when a parcel, wrapped in a newspaper, fell from the man's coat. Osborne told him that he had dropped something; but the man denied that the parcel belonged to him. Osborne picked up the parcel, and found that it contained a knife, having a peculiarly shaped handle and a thick blade, six or seven inches long, with stains upon it resembling blood. The parcel also contained a brown kid glove, smeared with similar stains on both sides. Osborne found a constable, and together they searched for the mysterious individual, but without success. The parcel, says the paragraph, was handed to the City police authorities, "who, however, attach no importance to the matter." What on earth could be more important, after the statement made by the man Hutchinson and quoted above?"

Sam Flynn
12-15-2017, 03:30 AM
No other witness mention rain - only Cox, and her statement doesn't jive with that given by Prater, who made no mention of rain, neither did Lewis, Kennedy or Bowyer who visited the water pump that morning.
So, it may not be wise to put your faith in the one solitary statement, especially when it seems to conflict with Praters.Don't the weather reports provide at least some corroboration? Besides, rain or no rain, the fact remains that the passage into Millers Court would have been a roof over his head, which would also have given him an opportunity to keep watch on Kelly's room.

Sam Flynn
12-15-2017, 03:32 AM
or was the name George Hutchinson an alias?
No, he was George Hutchinson alright.

Sam Flynn
12-15-2017, 03:41 AM
But Gareth, the truth is he claimed to have known Kelly for three years - which tends to blow a hole in your objection I suspect.
If he'd said "a year or two" I'd be inclined to agree.. Three years would still be an exaggeration.

Michael W Richards
12-15-2017, 05:43 AM
There are in fact very few reasonable answers for the thread question here, and for my money, one choice is the most probable....he was giving a story based upon what he had actually witnessed and done during that evening, he was giving his statement because it seemed someone else saw him there and he wanted to clear himself, he was giving his statement for the possible money and fame, or he was giving his story for a purpose as yet undetermined.

I think its the last one. I doubt his entire story because of the obvious embellishments and because of his 4 day delay in coming forward, I believe it wasn't particularly wise to imagine that assuming the role of Wideawake would give him any safety from suspicion...the man seen was obviously spying on that courtyard and was likely the catalyst for the Pardon offer Saturday afternoon, I would imagine that destitute people would consider even small sums a windfall, but I don't think he saw some big payday or heroic portrayal in the media...leaving some unknown purpose as the most probable.

Despite Caz's protestations, I consider changing the very nature of the figure seen watching the court from potentially malicious to essentially benign is a huge perspective changer, and the fact that the Police considered this man worthy of consideration as an Accomplice to the murder demonstrates that Wideawake was seen as potentially malicious character.

Claiming to watch an area where someone you claim to know by name and well enough to hand out money to on occasion, entered with a stranger is evidence that the guy was weird, but the preexisting friendship seems to dilute the potentially malicious nature of the man. Might have had a crush on her, might be looking out for her safety..waiting to hear or see any problems from that courtyard, might have stalked her, ...all viable possibilities.

But when we didn't know that man, he was dangerous.

Varqm
12-15-2017, 10:13 AM
Tell me, if Mrs Long was an upstanding woman, what happened to her 'suspect', the "shabby-genteel foreigner"?

What happened to Schwartz's 'suspect', the "broad-shouldered man"?

What happened to Lawende's 'suspect', the "red-neckerchief-man"?

Then of course we still have Mary Cox, so what happened to "Blotchy"?

C'mon Varqm, if you think the police lost interest in Hutchinson & his suspect because they make no further mention of him, then explain why Lawende, Schwartz, Long & Cox are no longer mentioned either.

Did they lose interest in all their suspects, or were the other witnesses liars too?
Then, they secretly believed some nobody called Kozminski was the killer, without a shred of evidence, or an established sighting?

I see it,so when 2 witnesses have a "suspect" sighting,one is 15 minutes long (and the way Hutch observed Astra man) and one few seconds,you will choose the one with the few seconds.To each his own.

Wickerman
12-15-2017, 04:17 PM
If he'd said "a year or two" I'd be inclined to agree.. Three years would still be an exaggeration.

But Gareth, three years prior, Kelly was living with the Morgenstern's in Breezers Hill, their next door neighbor was Stephen Maywood, who kept horses at Romford.
A potential connection speaks for itself.

Wickerman
12-15-2017, 04:47 PM
The Morning Advertiser 14th Nov describes the details of Hutchinson's statement but doesn't name him, instead saying "The name of the man who has given the information referred to to the police is purposely withheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety"

Is this the MA being overly cautious (since every other paper went ahead and named him), or was the name George Hutchinson an alias?

All I read into this is that the Morning Advertiser are relating the official line - that the police have chosen not to name the witness.
The fact his name appears in print as a result of his own actions is beside the point.

Wickerman
12-15-2017, 05:10 PM
If he was there at all, which I doubt. Like I suggested, what kind of idiot would wander the streets all night in the rain, having spent 45 minutes in or around a courtyard that had a covered passageway leading to it?

Well, it wasn't "all night", in the strickest sense, the place closed for cleaning sometime after 2:00, but most of these places opened again by 5:00 am, or thereabouts.
So, two, maybe three hours, not "all night".

And, whether you choose to believe Hutchinson was there, others saw the same man seen by Hutchinson.
Lewis saw the same couple go up the court while the loiterer was standing there, plus Bowyer saw Astrachan in the court when he went to the pump for water.

"Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, who's description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid."
Echo, 14 Nov. 1888.

Corroboration exists for parts of Hutchinson's story, and Abberline knew more than we do. He certainly knew of both these statements by Lewis & Bowyer, so there is really no mystery surrounding why Abberline chose to believe Hutchinson.
He was there, and Abberline knew it.

Paddy
12-15-2017, 06:28 PM
George James Hutchinson (Groom) married Margaret Isabella Stevens in 1874 at Christchurch, StGITE. His address is 12 Martha Street not far from Pennington. He had lived there since birth... His dad was Thomas a Stone Mason. His wife worked on the market. He was a butcher after marriage and was lodging in Newinton in 1901 with out his wife...
Pat...

Wickerman
12-15-2017, 07:12 PM
Hello Paddy.

Thankyou for that, what indication do you have that this Hutchinson was ever a Groom?

Robert St Devil
12-15-2017, 08:09 PM
Hi Jon.

Can you make anything out of "the shoes"? Hutchinson states in his "fuller report" on the 12th that the Astrachan man "walked softly". This coincides with Cox's testimony at the inquest, about the man making no sounds as he walked ahead of her. Could Mary have encountered two men with noticably soft soles within the span of a few hours? Or, is George borrowing a piece of information that he learned from The Star Nov 12 evening edition to dress up his suspect?

I read The Star has a slant against George Hutchinson. With the same breath, they dismiss Packer and Hutchinson and champion Cox's suspect [15th]. Mr Galloway insists he saw Cox's suspect [16th]. The man arrested in Euston resembles Cox's suspect [19th]. And, the man who attacks Annie Farmer has likeness to Cox's suspect[21st]. However, I don't recall seeing similar reporting in The Times.

Wickerman
12-15-2017, 09:03 PM
Hi Jon.

Can you make anything out of "the shoes"? Hutchinson states in his "fuller report" on the 12th that the Astrachan man "walked softly". This coincides with Cox's testimony at the inquest, about the man making no sounds as he walked ahead of her. Could Mary have encountered two men with noticably soft soles within the span of a few hours? Or, is George borrowing a piece of information that he learned from The Star Nov 12 evening edition to dress up his suspect?

Hi Robert.
I think the easy answer to that is to ask "why?"
Is Hutchinson so inept he can't even think up details by himself, he has to refer to newspaper stories for inspiration?
And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?

Would you need to look at a newspaper to help you come up with details?, or could you do this all by yourself?

The footwear most worn by the ordinary working man was the boot, hobnail boots. Old army boots picked up from second-hand shops. So most men could be heard coming, but if you wore anything else, like dress shoes, then you "walked softly", because no-one would hear you coming.

John Wheat
12-16-2017, 03:44 AM
The likeliest explanation was that he saw someone with Mary Jane Kelly who may have been her killer and Jack the Ripper.

Paddy
12-16-2017, 05:17 AM
Hello Paddy.
Thankyou for that, what indication do you have that this Hutchinson was ever a Groom?

Hi Jon it states he was a groom on his wedding cert in 1874.
However after this in the census he was a butcher. His wife worked on the market.

Pat....

c.d.
12-16-2017, 07:20 AM
"And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?"

Nice one, Wick. One of the best comments ever on a Hutchinson thread (or any other thread for that matter). Pretty much puts the whole Hutch thing in perspective.

c.d.

Michael W Richards
12-16-2017, 01:10 PM
Hi Robert.
I think the easy answer to that is to ask "why?"
Is Hutchinson so inept he can't even think up details by himself, he has to refer to newspaper stories for inspiration?
And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?

Would you need to look at a newspaper to help you come up with details?, or could you do this all by yourself?

The footwear most worn by the ordinary working man was the boot, hobnail boots. Old army boots picked up from second-hand shops. So most men could be heard coming, but if you wore anything else, like dress shoes, then you "walked softly", because no-one would hear you coming.


Jon, the "dress shoe" of the period had hard leather soles and heels, they would be if anything, louder than boot soles on cobblestones.

And clearly Hutchinson didnt need any help with embellishments, he quite obviously did just fine in that regard on his own.

Wickerman
12-16-2017, 01:12 PM
Hi Jon it states he was a groom on his wedding cert in 1874.
However after this in the census he was a butcher. His wife worked on the market.

Pat....

Thankyou Pat, that does make a significant difference, in my opinion.

Mind you, considering what happened to Mary, the fact this Hutch (if he is the witness?), became a butcher might send some theorists into a frenzy :)

Michael W Richards
12-16-2017, 01:15 PM
One thing that is abundantly clear is that Hutchinsons statement Monday night had nothing to do with aiding the police, nor catching Marys killer. Waiting 4 days is ample reason for this position,...any suspect could be half way around the globe let alone anywhere in the UK by that time. It was definitely not intended to aid police in the investigation of a murder of someone the witness claimed to know, and befriend on occasion.

So...now that any altruistic element is dispensed with, lets see what other half baked ideas people come up with. Frankly, Ive already given you the most probable reason....its one we dont know. He gave his statement for reasons known to himself, and not to help catch a killer. That in and of itself should cause anyone to hesitate before accepting a miraculously detailed suspect description....since it had no bearing on actually assisting the police anyway.

Wickerman
12-16-2017, 01:18 PM
Jon, the "dress shoe" of the period had hard leather soles and heels, they would be if anything, louder than boot soles on cobblestones.

And clearly Hutchinson didnt need any help with embellishments, he quite obviously did just fine in that regard on his own.

I appreciate the point you are making Michael, but hobnail boots are studded with nails, which make a series of click's on contact with cobblestones at every step. This is why a constable on his beat could be heard a good distance away.
Whereas well-worn leather dress-shoes tends to go soft after time.

Michael W Richards
12-16-2017, 01:28 PM
I appreciate the point you are making Michael, but hobnail boots are studded with nails, which make a series of click's on contact with cobblestones at every step. This is why a constable on his beat could be heard a good distance away.
Whereas well-worn leather dress-shoes tends to go soft after time.

If someone could afford a dress shoe during that period, then why would we assume he wears them till the heel is worn away and soft? Unless he buys them used, which contrasts the opulence of the rest of the description.

And the hobnail boot heel doesnt wear down exposing the nail heads, from use, the nails are embedded deeper in the leather, or the head is worn away.

Wickerman
12-16-2017, 01:34 PM
"And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?"

Nice one, Wick. One of the best comments ever on a Hutchinson thread (or any other thread for that matter). Pretty much puts the whole Hutch thing in perspective.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

I've heard nothing suggested against Hutchinson that a well trained detective couldn't have thought of at the time.
So all these, "hey, what-if.....", always amount to nothing.

This isn't the first time someone has suggested Hutchinson scoured the newspapers for details to help him make up a composite character.
Does anyone 'seriously', think they couldn't describe a make-believe character all by themselves?, and if they can, then why not Hutchinson?

Hutchinson described a gold watch chain with a red seal, buttoned boots and gaiters, horseshoe tie-pin - do we read of any of those details in some newspaper? - No.
So if he can think of those ostentatious? details all by himself, why not something so mundane as "walking softly"?

Wickerman
12-16-2017, 01:38 PM
If someone could afford a dress shoe during that period, then why would we assume he wears them till the heel is worn away and soft? Unless he buys them used, which contrasts the opulence of the rest of the description.

And the hobnail boot heel doesnt wear down exposing the nail heads, from use, the nails are embedded deeper in the leather, or the head is worn away.

Michael. this is what hobnail boots look like....

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aVaiRaXbnAc/TJ4pfALgncI/AAAAAAAAAxk/z0Mf4BUYWEc/s400/Picture+1.png
http://glencoemountaineer.blogspot.ca/2010/09/hobnailed-boot.html

Wickerman
12-16-2017, 01:59 PM
Victorian Miner's Hobnail Boots...

https://victoriancollections.net.au/media/collectors/4ff637fb023fd7172827a5d1/items/57ccf916d0cdd1172c081d39/item-media/57ccf946d0cdd1172c08437d/VictorianCollections-medium.jpg
https://victoriancollections.net.au/items/57ccf916d0cdd1172c081d39

.......the nails are embedded deeper in the leather, or the head is worn away.

The head is worn away Michael, which is why this exchange is part of the inquest record...
[Coroner] Then you think that his boots were down at heels ?
[Cox] He made no noise.

Don't you remember that the police fastened strips of rubber to the sole of their boots so they would make no noise?
Why do you think that is Michael?

Robert St Devil
12-16-2017, 02:48 PM
I wasn't asking to prove you wrong, Jon, I was simply asking. For some reason, you zeroed in on my 2nd question, one that I would have left out of my post except I read your post #4, The Star hits the streets at 4 or 5 pm on the 12th with a description of Cox's suspect. I noticed the only similarity between their suspects is the man walked softly. I'm not pro or anti Hutch, just trying to determine if he's telling the truth.

If he is telling the truth, then we have two witnesses who noticed the man accompanying Mary walked softly, and I wondered how commonplace it would have been for Mary to have met two men with these type shoes within a few hours considering most of the debates on the forum usually come back to everyone wearing heavy clodded footwear during this period. Hell, maybe it's the same guy, maybe Cox is a liar, &c.

I don't personally feel like Hutch had anything to do with her murder or being Jack the Ripper. No other prior sighting made Jack come forward (unless you blv the Cross theory), so I don't think Lewis' vague description of a man wearing a hat would have compelled him to seek out and deceive the police.

Wickerman
12-16-2017, 05:25 PM
Hi Robert.

My apologies, on reflection it might be fair to admit I unjustly focused on that one question of yours.

It's just that we've been down that road before, the time of Hutch's sighting at "two o'clock", a "respectably dressed man", who "approached the victim", plus a few other minor details can be read in the Saturday press. Which convinced one member that she had solved the problem - Hutchinson compiled his story from bits & pieces he gleaned from the Saturday press.

A right load of codswallop, to put it bluntly. Your remark just struck a cord, if you get what I mean.
Sorry about that.

Sam Flynn
12-17-2017, 01:35 AM
"Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, who's description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid."
Echo, 14 Nov. 1888.

Corroboration exists for parts of Hutchinson's story.Does Bowyer's description survive? He could have been describing Blotchy for all I know.

Wickerman
12-17-2017, 05:34 AM
The "supposed murderer", following Hutchinson's appearance at Commercial st. on the 12th was Astrachan, as widely published in the press on the 13th & 14th.

Bowyer's story appeared on the 14th, his account also mentioned "three o'clock" several times, as the time of his sighting. And, that if he had realized this was the killer "I reckon he wouldn't have got off", which if taken as a euphemism must imply Bowyer would have done him over, so to speak.

There are two separate accounts of Bowyer saying he last saw Kelly on Wednesday, one at the inquest, one in the press. Which suggests he didn't see Kelly with this man at 3:00 on Friday morning, it was just the man by himself. Which in turn must imply this man was leaving the court, as Kelly was seen accompanying both her clients (Blotchy & Astrachan) as they arrived that night. But Bowyer saw this man alone - so the man was leaving.

Not only was Blotchy not the "supposed murderer" as described by the press on the 13th & 14th, having him leave at 3:00 after arriving about 11:45 is far too long a time.
Whereas, according to Hutchinson his suspect only arrived shortly after 2:00, which makes Astrachan the most likely person seen by Bowyer, as Astrachan was indisputably the "supposed murderer" as widely assumed on the day this report was published in the press.

Abby Normal
12-17-2017, 05:44 AM
The "supposed murderer", following Hutchinson's appearance at Commercial st. on the 12th was Astrachan, as widely published in the press on the 13th & 14th.

Bowyer's story appeared on the 14th, his account also mentioned "three o'clock" several times, as the time of his sighting. And, that if he had realized this was the killer "I reckon he wouldn't have got off", which if taken as a euphemism must imply Bowyer would have done him over, so to speak.

There are two separate accounts of Bowyer saying he last saw Kelly on Wednesday, one at the inquest, one in the press. Which suggests he didn't see Kelly with this man at 3:00 on Friday morning, it was just the man by himself. Which in turn must imply this man was leaving the court, as Kelly was seen accompanying both her clients (Blotchy & Astrachan) as they arrived that night. But Bowyer saw this man alone - so the man was leaving.

Not only was Blotchy not the "supposed murderer" as described by the press on the 13th & 14th, having him leave at 3:00 after arriving about 11:45 is far too long a time.
Whereas, according to Hutchinson his suspect only arrived shortly after 2:00, which makes Astrachan the most likely person seen by Bowyer, as Astrachan was indisputably the "supposed murderer" as widely assumed on the day this report was published in the press.

Do you do magic tricks too?

Abby Normal
12-17-2017, 05:45 AM
"And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?"

Nice one, Wick. One of the best comments ever on a Hutchinson thread (or any other thread for that matter). Pretty much puts the whole Hutch thing in perspective.

c.d.

Your easily impressed.

Wickerman
12-17-2017, 06:49 AM
Do you do magic tricks too?

Ever think before you speak?

Abby Normal
12-17-2017, 07:03 AM
Ever think before you speak?

Yup. And you obviously think too much before you do

Joshua Rogan
12-17-2017, 07:20 AM
Jon, I don't suppose you have a link to Bowyer's report of seeing the man, do you? Seems a bit fishy that he not only discovered the body but placed himself at the scene around the time of death, too. Why isn't he suspect no.1?

c.d.
12-17-2017, 07:31 AM
Your easily impressed.

Easily impressed? I'm not so sure. But I was impressed that Wickerman was able to cut through the essentially uncountable layers of Hutchinson nonsense to get to the bottom line. Sometimes it is important to state the obvious. The paradox of Hutchinson is that if it is so apparently obvious to people on these boards that Hutchinson engaged in highly suspicious activities then it is a reasonable assumption that the police at the time would have been of the same mind and acted accordingly. Unless they were complete and total idiots and completely incompetent.

c.d.

Abby Normal
12-17-2017, 07:35 AM
Jon, I don't suppose you have a link to Bowyer's report of seeing the man, do you? Seems a bit fishy that he not only discovered the body but placed himself at the scene around the time of death, too. Why isn't he suspect no.1?

Jr
Debra Arif found the article a couple of years ago that Bowyer said, quoted, no less, that he was in the court in the middle of the night. He didnít see any man at that time and said he was sorry he didnít because he missed the chance to catch the ripper.

I asked the same thing you just did about bowyer, and still think heís fishy. At the time she posted it I was surprised that there was so little interest by casebookers.

Wicks, as usual, with the other press reports of Boyer saying he saw a peculiar man a day or so earlier in the court, is trying to twist it into his legendarium with his well dressed man suspect at the center.

Abby Normal
12-17-2017, 07:45 AM
Easily impressed? I'm not so sure. But I was impressed that Wickerman was able to cut through the essentially uncountable layers of Hutchinson nonsense to get to the bottom line. Sometimes it is important to state the obvious. The paradox of Hutchinson is that if it is so apparently obvious to people on these boards that Hutchinson engaged in highly suspicious activities then it is a reasonable assumption that the police at the time would have been of the same mind and acted accordingly. Unless they were complete and total idiots and completely incompetent.

c.d.

Ok. So cutting through the ďuncountable layers of Hutchinson nonsense to get to the bottom lineĒ is what then? And how did the police act accordingly?

Joshua Rogan
12-17-2017, 08:03 AM
Jr
Debra Arif found the article a couple of years ago that Bowyer said, quoted, no less, that he was in the court in the middle of the night. He didnít see any man at that time and said he was sorry he didnít because he missed the chance to catch the ripper.

I asked the same thing you just did about bowyer, and still think heís fishy. At the time she posted it I was surprised that there was so little interest by casebookers.

Wicks, as usual, with the other press reports of Boyer saying he saw a peculiar man a day or so earlier in the court, is trying to twist it into his legendarium with his well dressed man suspect at the center.

Cheers Abby. Sounds similar to the remarks of George Morris, the Kearley & Tonge's watchman;
"It was only on that night that he remarked to some policeman that he wished the "butcher" would come round Mitre square, and he would give him a doing; yet the "butcher" had come, and he was perfectly ignorant of it"

Still, it's odd that the press reports from the Echo on this site stop at 13th Nov... seems almost like a bit of a cover-up.

Sam Flynn
12-17-2017, 09:57 AM
if it is so apparently obvious to people on these boards that Hutchinson engaged in highly suspicious activities then it is a reasonable assumption that the police at the time would have been of the same mind and acted accordingly. Unless they were complete and total idiots and completely incompetent.
No matter how competent the police were, it doesn't preclude the idea that Hutchinson succeeded in hoodwinking them. He won't have been the first bogus witness to have done so, nor the last.

c.d.
12-17-2017, 10:04 AM
No matter how competent the police were, it doesn't preclude the idea that Hutchinson succeeded in hoodwinking them. He won't have been the first bogus witness to have done so, nor the last.

Agreed, Sam. But that holds true for every single person they questioned in this case not just Hutchinson.

c.d.

Sam Flynn
12-17-2017, 10:49 AM
Agreed, Sam. But that holds true for every single person they questioned in this case not just Hutchinson.
Not quite, CD, in the sense that not every person in this case came up with such an extraordinarily detailed description of a suspect, nor indeed of their own (in this case, Hutchinson's) movements at the time in question. In fact - correct me if I'm wrong - Hutchinson's story, both what he saw and what he did, was by far and away the most detailed in the entire case.

Most of the other witness descriptions were usually so "ordinary" that they don't give the impression that the witnesses were trying to hoodwink anyone.

c.d.
12-17-2017, 11:11 AM
Hello Sam,

I have no problem with the idea that the police could have been fooled by Hutchinson and that he was in fact the Ripper. No matter how competent a police force is they are still human and therefore can make mistakes. What I do object to is the idea apparently held by some that the police were fooled by Hutch because they were incompetent and failed to see the obvious signs. And what is there proof of this? Simple. Hutchinson was never a suspect and never arrested for the murder. That seems to be circular reasoning.

c.d.

Sam Flynn
12-17-2017, 11:25 AM
What I do object to is the idea apparently held by some that the police were fooled by Hutch because they were incompetent and failed to see the obvious signs.
The good news is that I don't subscribe to that view, CD. One doesn't need to be incompetent to be taken in by a plausible liar - I'm sure that an experienced detective like George Oldfield wasn't incompetent at all, but he and some of his colleagues were well taken in by the "Wearside Jack" hoax letters and tape recording.

Abby Normal
12-17-2017, 12:15 PM
The good news is that I don't subscribe to that view, CD. One doesn't need to be incompetent to be taken in by a plausible liar - I'm sure that an experienced detective like George Oldfield wasn't incompetent at all, but he and some of his colleagues were well taken in by the "Wearside Jack" hoax letters and tape recording.

Exactly sam. And what are they going to do anyway even if they did think he was embelling or lying? How are they going to prove it? And it seems and probable the police werenít all of one mind concerning hutchís story. Some probably believed or not believed the veracity of his report in varying degrees, and indeed, the only one who mentions him some time later, dew, thinks he was mistaken.

No one, not the police then or people now, despite wicker mans and cds assertion that it has been ďcut throughĒ to the ďbottom lineĒ concerning hutch.
The only thing certain about hutch is that itís totally uncertain.

c.d.
12-17-2017, 01:48 PM
Hello Abby,

Well if you or Sam can offer concrete evidence that Hutchinson was the Ripper beyond simply saying that you think his actions were suspicious and you feel the police at the time dropped the ball I would certainly be open to taking a look at it. But it could be a tough road to hoe.

c.d.

Sam Flynn
12-17-2017, 01:59 PM
Hello Abby,

Well if you or Sam can offer concrete evidence that Hutchinson was the Ripper
I don't think he was the Ripper; I think he was a fantasist and quite possibly an attention seeker. I believe that he grossly exaggerated his story at the very least, and at worst made it up completely.

c.d.
12-17-2017, 02:05 PM
I don't think he was the Ripper; I think he was a fantasist and quite possibly an attention seeker. I believe that he grossly exaggerated his story at the very least, and at worst made it up completely.

That is probably true and probably what the police at the time concluded which leads to the question then why in the hell do we have about ten million Hutchinson threads? :shakehead:

c.d.

Abby Normal
12-17-2017, 02:08 PM
Hello Abby,

Well if you or Sam can offer concrete evidence that Hutchinson was the Ripper beyond simply saying that you think his actions were suspicious and you feel the police at the time dropped the ball I would certainly be open to taking a look at it. But it could be a tough road to hoe.

c.d.

Hi cd
As Iíve said many times, I think the most likely scenario is that he was just an attention seeker.

Abby Normal
12-17-2017, 02:11 PM
That is probably true and probably what the police at the time concluded which leads to the question then why in the hell do we have about ten million Hutchinson threads? :shakehead:

c.d.

Probably because there are so many questions about him.

c.d.
12-17-2017, 02:12 PM
Hi cd
As Iíve said many times, I think the most likely scenario is that he was just an attention seeker.

Well my impression was that you thought he was the Ripper so my apologies.

c.d.

Bridewell
12-17-2017, 02:20 PM
Reminiscent of hutch shanking his story later when he says heís now outside her apartment. Scared someone had seen him and changes his story.
Classic lying behavior.

A 'change of story' by Hutchinson - or by a journalist embellishing the account to sell a few more newspapers?

Sam Flynn
12-17-2017, 02:20 PM
That is probably true and probably what the police at the time concluded which leads to the question then why in the hell do we have about ten million Hutchinson threads?
I guess its because either (a) the suspect he described pushes some people's buttons; or (b) Hutchinson himself pushes some people's buttons as a suspect. Whatever the reason, as the purveyor of the most verb-, noun- and adjective-packed story outside (or inside?) of Ripper fiction, Hutchinson certainly offers some rich pickings.

Wickerman
12-17-2017, 02:21 PM
Jon, I don't suppose you have a link to Bowyer's report of seeing the man, do you? Seems a bit fishy that he not only discovered the body but placed himself at the scene around the time of death, too. Why isn't he suspect no.1?

Hi Joshua.

I don't have a link, I have the copy downloaded from JTRForums, but here is a quote with the relevant paragraphs:

...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply. Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. McCarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has traveled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

I don't see how it can be fishy when he worked there at the shop. It was his job to fetch & carry, doing the small jobs in the shop and around the court.
He only discovered the body because he was told to go to No. 13, but he was in and out of the court several times over the night.
Everyone present in the court over that night would be equally suspected, including the McCarthy family. Being present is merely one of several factors necessary to make one a viable suspect. What about all the other factors, not the least would be motive?

Bridewell
12-17-2017, 02:22 PM
Hi,
Always has to be some kind of conspiracy.
Topping always maintained to his sons, and to everyone else, that he knew one of the victims, gave a statement to the police, and assisted them in looking for the man he saw , but to no avail.
Its really that simple.
He maintained he received Five pounds for his efforts.. a princely sum, however, we don't know how long he kept up the search, and may have been paid for a lengthy period.even if it was circulated that he was not involved .
I have never doubted his account, its not a question whether or not he saw Mr A, but was he the killer?
Regards Richard.

Thanks, Richard. I was beginning to think I was the only one left who places some faith in Hutchinson's account.

Sam Flynn
12-17-2017, 02:24 PM
Hi Joshua.

I don't have a link, I have the copy downloaded from JTRForums, but here is a quote with the relevant paragraphs:

[I]...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.
Bowyer was no young man at the time. I wonder if newspaper reports like these were the source of Walter Dew's incorrect belief that Bowyer was a "youth"?

Wickerman
12-17-2017, 02:41 PM
The good news is that I don't subscribe to that view, CD. One doesn't need to be incompetent to be taken in by a plausible liar - I'm sure that an experienced detective like George Oldfield wasn't incompetent at all, but he and some of his colleagues were well taken in by the "Wearside Jack" hoax letters and tape recording.

I think the point that several of us have been at pains to hi-lite is, that these personal suspicions like "you think" he lied, are nothing more than guesswork.
As with any investigation, whether it be ancient historical analysis or more recent murder investigations, the only credible arguments come from the evidence - not from idle speculation.
Let the evidence speak for itself, do not replace the evidence with conjecture - but that is precisely what the 'anti-Hutchinson' crowd are and have been doing from day one!

There is not, nor has there ever been, any indication Hutchinson lied, or made anything up. This is idle speculation. What exists in the court records & press testimony from the inquest, plus witness statements in the press is all we have by way of evidence.

The 'anti-Hutchinson' crowd, dismiss what doesn't support their theories in favor of idle speculation, but criticize bonafide arguments based on the existing evidence. That is the topsy-turvy world of Casebook, and one of the significant reasons the more knowledgeable authors no longer frequent Casebook.

Wickerman
12-17-2017, 02:49 PM
Bowyer was no young man at the time. I wonder if newspaper reports like these were the source of Walter Dew's incorrect belief that Bowyer was a "youth"?

I know the term "errand boy" was used for anyone who did the runaround jobs like Bowyer, the label does not reflect the age of the person so named.

Sam Flynn
12-17-2017, 03:01 PM
I think the point that several of us have been at pains to hi-lite is, that these personal suspicions like "you think" he lied, are nothing more than guesswork.
It is emphatically not guesswork or "idle speculation", Jon. Hutchinson's actions, as he recounts them, are bizarre, his story is incredibly (as in "unbelievably") detailed and some of it has parallels with what had been circulating in the press - and on the streets - throughout the Autumn of Terror.

For the record, I do not "guess", nor do I "idly speculate". If I believe something, then it's usually because I've given it years and years of thought. I also resent the implication that I am somehow partly responsible for "one of the significant reasons [why] the more knowledgeable authors no longer frequent Casebook". The latter is probably because of the sometimes adversarial nature of the postings of some of the otherwise knowledgeable authors who DO post here, but it's more likely due to the fact that the more knowledgeable authors have other things to do.

Bridewell
12-17-2017, 03:58 PM
It is emphatically not guesswork or "idle speculation", Jon. Hutchinson's actions, as he recounts them, are bizarre, his story is incredibly (as in "unbelievably") detailed and some of it has parallels with what had been circulating in the press - and on the streets - throughout the Autumn of Terror.

However unbelievable Hutchinson's account may be to the modern reader, the fact is that Abberline recorded, in writing, that he was 'of opinion his (Hutchinson's) story is true'. It may have been true or it may not. When first given however - to a police officer who knew the ground as well as anyone - the account was believed. It may have been false, and the belief may or may not have persisted. Clearly though, as it was believed when given, it was not 'unbelievable'.

Abby Normal
12-17-2017, 04:01 PM
I think the point that several of us have been at pains to hi-lite is, that these personal suspicions like "you think" he lied, are nothing more than guesswork.
As with any investigation, whether it be ancient historical analysis or more recent murder investigations, the only credible arguments come from the evidence - not from idle speculation.
Let the evidence speak for itself, do not replace the evidence with conjecture - but that is precisely what the 'anti-Hutchinson' crowd are and have been doing from day one!

There is not, nor has there ever been, any indication Hutchinson lied, or made anything up. This is idle speculation. What exists in the court records & press testimony from the inquest, plus witness statements in the press is all we have by way of evidence.

The 'anti-Hutchinson' crowd, dismiss what doesn't support their theories in favor of idle speculation, but criticize bonafide arguments based on the existing evidence. That is the topsy-turvy world of Casebook, and one of the significant reasons the more knowledgeable authors no longer frequent Casebook.

Not only is that a Weasley cheap shot that isnít even true, but rich coming from you who cherry pick news reports, no matter how ridiculously obvious that they are erroneous, to fit into your well dressed man legendarium and then constantly spout this misleading nonsense ad nauseum as if it were fact.

Abby Normal
12-17-2017, 04:09 PM
However unbelievable Hutchinson's account may be to the modern reader, the fact is that Abberline recorded, in writing, that he was 'of opinion his (Hutchinson's) story is true'. It may have been true or it may not. When first given however - to a police officer who knew the ground as well as anyone - the account was believed. It may have been false, and the belief may or may not have persisted. Clearly though, as it was believed when given, it was not 'unbelievable'.

Hi bridewell
Thatís true but many things are originally believed until further info or circumstances come into play. One has to take into account everything like the later news accounts that discount his story, dews later recollection that hutch was mistaken and most telling to me any way, Aberlines later recollections that are devoid of anything hutch/ Aman and balance it with the later things that point to hutches truthfulness, like later accounts of the police still looking for a man, the toppling story etc, and try to come to a sensible conclusion.

Wickerman
12-17-2017, 04:30 PM
It is emphatically not guesswork or "idle speculation", Jon. Hutchinson's actions, as he recounts them, are bizarre, his story is incredibly (as in "unbelievably") detailed and some of it has parallels with what had been circulating in the press - and on the streets - throughout the Autumn of Terror.

But Gareth, that is exactly what speculation is.
Your interpretation is subjective because it is based on nothing tangible - just your gut feeling.
You admitted yourself that you think he made the whole thing up. In spite of the fact Lewis saw the same couple, at the same time, walk up the court while this loiterer was present. That is evidence, but you reject it, and in favor of what?
Conjecture.
This is exactly what I am talking about.

For the record, I do not "guess", nor do I "idly speculate". If I believe something, then it's usually because I've given it years and years of thought.

You may deny to your hearts content, but as you have just admitted that you think he made it all up, contrary to Lewis's evidence, and that of Bowyer, then your position is very clear regardless of any denial.

Gareth, giving this issue years of thought doesn't mean your conclusion cannot be speculation.
You do not believe him because you have no firsthand knowledge of the nightlife and what class of people came and went throughout any given night, or what attire they wore.
Yet, you reject the opinion of someone who did have this firsthand knowledge (Abberline). And the best justification you can offer is that "people make mistakes"?
You think your lack of knowledge is superior to someone with proven knowledge. How does that make any sense?


I also resent the implication that I am somehow partly responsible for "one of the significant reasons [why] the more knowledgeable authors no longer frequent Casebook".

No Gareth, not you personally. I'm talking about this type of superior attitude from those who think they know better, while rejecting the meager evidence which has survived, and in favor of what? - speculation.

This has been going on for well over a decade, yet none of these 'anti-Hutchinson' proponents can even agree on what he is supposed to have lied about, or what he is supposed to have done wrong.
Disorganized nit-picking is probably the best summary of the complaints against Hutchinson.

Robert St Devil
12-17-2017, 04:51 PM
Hi Robert.

My apologies, on reflection it might be fair to admit I unjustly focused on that one question of yours.

It's just that we've been down that road before, the time of Hutch's sighting at "two o'clock", a "respectably dressed man", who "approached the victim", plus a few other minor details can be read in the Saturday press. Which convinced one member that she had solved the problem - Hutchinson compiled his story from bits & pieces he gleaned from the Saturday press.

A right load of codswallop, to put it bluntly. Your remark just struck a cord, if you get what I mean.
Sorry about that.


Gotcha. Nothing really sticks out to me against Hutchinson, and it seems like it was the police who put George in the spotlight when they forwarded his statement up the chain of command post haste. It seems to me like he was just offering the piece of information that he knew to the police station; next thing he knows, he's talking with Abberline and his name's in the press a few days later. One thing, The Times have him stating that he identified Mary at the Shoreditch mortuary. Would he have had to offer some proof of acquaintance (ie general description) before he gained that type of access from the authorities?

Sam Flynn
12-17-2017, 05:28 PM
But Gareth, that is exactly what speculation is.
Your interpretation is subjective because it is based on nothing tangible - just your gut feeling.
Not "gut feeling" at all. I studied experimental method for three years as part of my degree course. I know the difference between empiricism and subjectivity. That's not to say that I'm right, but I am at least capable of distinguishing subjectivity from objectivity.

Wickerman
12-17-2017, 05:38 PM
Not only is that a Weasley cheap shot that isnít even true, but rich coming from you who cherry pick news reports, no matter how ridiculously obvious that they are erroneous, to fit into your well dressed man legendarium and then constantly spout this misleading nonsense ad nauseum as if it were fact.

I "use" news reports. You "reject" news reports.
That is not cherry-picking, are you sure you even know what cherry-picking is?

When these same reports identify a respectably dressed man, then obviously it isn't me who is forming the theory, the issue existed at the time.

As Macdonald demonstrated a specific interest in that Britannia-man, and this same Britannia-man is identified in the press as one of the three suspects, along with Blotchy & Astrachan, then this is just another example of your blind approach to the problem, or you are not as well informed as you pretend to be.

Wickerman
12-17-2017, 05:49 PM
Not "gut feeling" at all. I studied experimental method for three years as part of my degree course. I know the difference between empiricism and subjectivity. That's not to say that I'm right, but I am at least capable of distinguishing subjectivity from objectivity.

Well, your opinion is not the result of empiricism as you have no firsthand experience, and you seemingly reject alternative explanations for Hutchinson's story, so you cannot be accused of being objective, so what is left?

Sam Flynn
12-18-2017, 12:15 AM
Well, your opinion is not the result of empiricism as you have no firsthand experience, and you seemingly reject alternative explanations for Hutchinson's story, so you cannot be accused of being objective, so what is left?
The fact that I find the bull$hit interpretation of Hutchinson's story the more probable. That may be incorrect, but it is NOT guesswork nor idle dismissal.

Abby Normal
12-18-2017, 05:14 AM
I "use" news reports. You "reject" news reports.
That is not cherry-picking, are you sure you even know what cherry-picking is?

When these same reports identify a respectably dressed man, then obviously it isn't me who is forming the theory, the issue existed at the time.

As Macdonald demonstrated a specific interest in that Britannia-man, and this same Britannia-man is identified in the press as one of the three suspects, along with Blotchy & Astrachan, then this is just another example of your blind approach to the problem, or you are not as well informed as you pretend to be.

Blind approach? No wick, I keep an open mind, thatís why I always view things as likelihood of different scenarios. Unlike you who twist everything to fit your pre conceived well dressed man scenario

Michael W Richards
12-18-2017, 05:16 AM
Gotcha. Nothing really sticks out to me against Hutchinson, and it seems like it was the police who put George in the spotlight when they forwarded his statement up the chain of command post haste. It seems to me like he was just offering the piece of information that he knew to the police station; next thing he knows, he's talking with Abberline and his name's in the press a few days later. One thing, The Times have him stating that he identified Mary at the Shoreditch mortuary. Would he have had to offer some proof of acquaintance (ie general description) before he gained that type of access from the authorities?

GH's statement itself gives us reason to question his story, because if he had a relationship with the woman he wouldn't have waited 4 full days and until after the end of the Inquest to come forward. If the glorious descriptive elements of his story weren't enough. And the fact that the press reports that Wednesday that his story is discredited.

I wonder if the Inquest had lasted a few days when he might have come in.

Wickerman
12-18-2017, 06:39 AM
See, this is typical of why much of the criticism against Hutchinson is both self induced, and a bit of a fantasy.

The newspapers after the murder, over the weekend, were full of press theories about Kelly being murdered after 9:00 Friday morning. Around 7 hours after Hutchinson spoke to her at 2:00. Yet a handful of modern theorists expect him to rush to police to tell them he saw Kelly with a man 7 hours before she is presumed murdered?
What conceivable use would his sighting be to police in their investigation if the press theories were correct?

Then there is this preoccupation with the apparently false claim by the Star on Thursday, 15th, where it is claimed Hutchinson's story is discredited.
We can see how false the claim is by the fact the Star make no further mention of their claim, yet the very next day, the 16th, Galloway's story appeared in the press where we learn the police are looking for Astrachan.

Then again, three days later, on the 19th, the press report how the police are divided between pursuing both suspects, blotchy & Astrachan.

So, it is patently clear the report by the Star on the 15th was false, yet the alternate reports which demonstrate the police were still actively investigating Hutchinson's story are ignored.

Self-induced fantasy.
This, as one other member might recognize, is a perfect example of cherry-picking.
You refuse to accept the evidence as a whole, but prefer to only recognize what fits your own personal theory.

Wickerman
12-18-2017, 07:01 AM
Blind approach? No wick, I keep an open mind, thatís why I always view things as likelihood of different scenarios. Unlike you who twist everything to fit your pre conceived well dressed man scenario

An "open mind" means you are open to alternate theories, you wouldn't be so caustic in your dismissal of Hutchinson if that were true.

I don't need to twist anything, the contemporary belief in the "well-dressed" suspect was widespread and well reported in the press.
Again, you choose to ignore this. The defective approach lies with yourself, not Caz, c.d., myself nor anyone else who has shown you why your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

Robert St Devil
12-18-2017, 07:55 AM
GH's statement itself gives us reason to question his story, because if he had a relationship with the woman he wouldn't have waited 4 full days and until after the end of the Inquest to come forward. If the glorious descriptive elements of his story weren't enough. And the fact that the press reports that Wednesday that his story is discredited.

I wonder if the Inquest had lasted a few days when he might have come in.

Hi Michael. After following this thread, I'm not convinced George was acting deceptively, but I get the suspicion around his "4-day wait".

>I wonder if it was the police action in the wake of his statement that is partly behind this suspicion:
Morning Advertiser, 13 Nov 1888
The police apparently attach some importance to the man's story, and the statement was forwarded to the headquarters of the H division by a special detective.

IOW, George had no clue that his statement was going to make the evening news or get him an interview with Abberline. He probably didn't know where his info was going to fit in with the police investigation; it just so happened the police attached some importance to his statement and forwarded it up the chain, making his name forever more part of Ripperology.
I posted that The Star had a slant against George Hutchinson in favor of Mary Cox's suspect. I would need the full newspapers to verify 100% but I don't see similar discrediting coming from The Times, Daily Telegraph or Morning Advertiser in the days after he came forward.

>As for the inquest, he narrowly missed having to attend a 2nd inquest:
The Star, 14 Nov 1888
A second inquest would have been held on Kelly's body had it been removed into the Whitechapel district for burial. But the double inquiry has been averted by the action of Mr. H. Wilton, parish clerk and keeper of the Shoreditch mortuary. He has undertaken to inter the body at his own expense, assisted by contributions which may be received, and yesterday he obtained from the coroner's officer an order to prepare a coffin.

Abby Normal
12-18-2017, 08:37 AM
An "open mind" means you are open to alternate theories, you wouldn't be so caustic in your dismissal of Hutchinson if that were true.

I don't need to twist anything, the contemporary belief in the "well-dressed" suspect was widespread and well reported in the press.
Again, you choose to ignore this. The defective approach lies with yourself, not Caz, c.d., myself nor anyone else who has shown you why your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

no wick, I am open to alternate theories and scenarios-and theres nothing wrong with a well dressed suspect per se, its your constant, misleading twisting of the meaning and veracity of the reports where your theory becomes crackpot.

and stop always trying to drag anyone else(Caz, CD, "authors" who don't post here anymore LOL) when trying to get back up for your arguments.
Its so childish, and too easy to see right through your desperate attempts to win the argument with the "everyones on my side" bullshit.

Wickerman
12-18-2017, 12:54 PM
I posted that The Star had a slant against George Hutchinson in favor of Mary Cox's suspect. I would need the full newspapers to verify 100% but I don't see similar discrediting coming from The Times, Daily Telegraph or Morning Advertiser in the days after he came forward.


Hi Robert.

I'm not sure if you are aware but the Star was a new paper in 1888, they were known to make controversial claims in order to sell copy. They needed their paper to make money right out of the gate, so to speak.
Their contemporaries (Times, Telegraph, etc.) looked on this new upstart as notorious and unreliable as regards to accuracy in their reporting.
John Pizer threatened to sue the Star over their exaggerated claims that he was Leather Apron. The Star settled out of court.

With respect to this issue of "discrediting" Hutchinson by the Star, we see more of the same cavalier approach towards the truth.
What had transpired was that as a result of Hutchinson's appearance on Monday night following the inquest, this new suspect - Astrachan, was immediately vaulted up to being suspect No. 1. This was reported as such on the morning of the 13th, the day following his interview with police.

Also on the 13th, in the evening edition of the Echo, they report that Hutchinson's statement is now of seemingly of "reduced importance", without providing any reason why.

The next day, on the evening of the 14th, the Echo report that the police are making this statement the subject of careful inquiry.
However, in contradiction to this the Star of the 14th report that the story by Hutchinson "is now discredited".
The story can't be discredited, if they are still making it the subject of careful inquiry .

Then on the 16th the Evening News & the Star both report that one Met. constable was not looking for the Cox suspect, but "someone of a very different appearance" - presumably alluding to Hutchinson's suspect - Astrachan.

Then on the 19th, the Echo report that the police "have not relaxed their endeavours" to hunt down the murderer - though they are now divided between looking for both Blotchy & Astrachan.

From this sequence of events it can be seen that the controversial claim by the Star on the 14th was another exaggeration.
That Hutchinson had suddenly been elevated to a star witness, only to be downgraded to being of parallel importance with Cox. That the police are pursuing two equally important suspects. Hutchinson had not been discredited at all, the police were still pursuing Hutchinson's suspect four days later, on the 19th.

Sam Flynn
12-18-2017, 01:11 PM
From this sequence of events it can be seen that the controversial claim by the Star on the 14th was another exaggeration.
It might also mean that the order in which stories appeared in the papers, even the same paper, was not necessarily in the correct chronological sequence. I can well imagine an editor, on a "quiet news day", using a story from a few days previously, and I can imagine a journalist missing a deadline on one day only for his article to be carried a day or two later.

That aside, the very fact that the Echo on the 19th was saying that the police were divided as to Blotchy vs Astrakhan indicates that some no longer favoured Hutchinson's suspect at that point. Seen in that light, the Star's report of the 14th might not have been much of an exaggeration after all.

Robert St Devil
12-18-2017, 01:20 PM
Hi Jon, and no I wasn't aware that they were that new. Thanks and I'll look into the Echo and the Evening News when I get home tonight. This was how I read the slant against Hutchinson in the The Star and a preference for Cox's suspect [my emphasis]:

15th
Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson... As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man

16th
Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, and living at Stepney, has made the following statement : "...I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

19th
...excitement was caused in London yesterday by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston... somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered

21st: Attack on Annie Farmer
A Star reporter got hold of Frank Ruffell, and he made [a] statement... This description given, from Ruffell's manner with evident truth, tallies remarkably with that given by the Widow Cox at the inquest on the Dorset-street victim."

Wickerman
12-18-2017, 04:45 PM
That aside, the very fact that the Echo on the 19th was saying that the police were divided as to Blotchy vs Astrakhan indicates that some no longer favoured Hutchinson's suspect at that point. Seen in that light, the Star's report of the 14th might not have been much of an exaggeration after all.

There are no half measures in a discredited story, it either is discredited or it isn't.

The division between the two suspects more likely reflects the beliefs of the two forces involved. The City Police pursuing one suspect while the Met. pursue the other. Their respective suspects had different descriptions after all.

If a story is discredited it cannot be relied on by anyone, but if one detective, department or force believe the story, then it is not discredited.
It's a case of all or nothing.

Wickerman
12-18-2017, 04:52 PM
Hello Robert.

I follow your line of reason, though the report of the 19th - quoted below, does not fit your argument.



19th
...excitement was caused in London yesterday by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston... somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered


This suspect was in the company of Kelly "early on the morning", yet Blotchy was seen with Kelly at 11:45 pm Thursday night. The early morning sighting was Hutchinson's at 2:00 am.

jerryd
12-18-2017, 05:09 PM
There are no half measures in a discredited story, it either is discredited or it isn't.

The division between the two suspects more likely reflects the beliefs of the two forces involved. The City Police pursuing one suspect while the Met. pursue the other. Their respective suspects had different descriptions after all.

If a story is discredited it cannot be relied on by anyone, but if one detective, department or force believe the story, then it is not discredited.
It's a case of all or nothing.

Jon,

Evening News
London, U.K.
16 November 1888

At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars. Finding himself being watched, he immediately hurried his footsteps, and without giving time for any action to be taken, entered the Underground Railway station near by, and escaped.

The Echo 17 Nov 1888

There is some news this morning, however, of the man "with the blotchy face and carroty moustache," He is averred to have been seen at a late hour, yesterday, in Battersea Park Road, at a period subsequent to that in which he is said to have been seen in Queen Victoria Street. The police were at once on the alert, but without any result.



These two news clips are talking about the same man in Queen Victoria Street. Are they talking about A-Man or Blotchy? The first clip says Hutch's suspect but uses the same street sighting as the Blotchy man in the second clip. Who are they talking about?

Robert St Devil
12-18-2017, 05:42 PM
I was focusing in on the "declared... at the inquest" part of the report/sentence. Could only think of Mary Ann... no wait... sorry... just hit me... they use the word "witnesses" in that sentence. The Star must be talking about Mrs. Cox and Mrs. Maxwell, and letting 11:45p slide for "early morning". Really, who else from the inquest is left who matches the criteria?

I saw the press reports that have some police chasing this guy while others chase that guy, mystery within a mystery. "Police" can be a banner term too often; maybe it was a divisional thing.

The tone in some newspapers downplay the value of Hutchinson's description to the police, as though it already matched the police's general composite. I'm wondering if they were more interested in his statement because they were working off a 3-to-4 am time of death

Wickerman
12-18-2017, 06:08 PM
Hello Jerry.

I have been going through the BNA to see what the earliest newspapers reported on that account.
It appears the wording in the earliest accounts say, "who answered the published description of the man wanted for the murder, etc".

Blotchy's description was never published as the wanted man. The description of the Hutchinson suspect was widely published on the morning of the 13th.
So it would appear the Echo inserted the wrong details in their account of the same story.

Do you have any thoughts on your question?


Jon,

Evening News
London, U.K.
16 November 1888

At about ten o'clock this morning, a man answering every description to the particulars furnished to the police by G. Hutchinson, as seen by him on the night of the murder of the woman Kelly, attracted attention in Queen Victoria-street, Blackfriars. Finding himself being watched, he immediately hurried his footsteps, and without giving time for any action to be taken, entered the Underground Railway station near by, and escaped.

The Echo 17 Nov 1888

There is some news this morning, however, of the man "with the blotchy face and carroty moustache," He is averred to have been seen at a late hour, yesterday, in Battersea Park Road, at a period subsequent to that in which he is said to have been seen in Queen Victoria Street. The police were at once on the alert, but without any result.



These two news clips are talking about the same man in Queen Victoria Street. Are they talking about A-Man or Blotchy? The first clip says Hutch's suspect but uses the same street sighting as the Blotchy man in the second clip. Who are they talking about?

jerryd
12-18-2017, 06:18 PM
Hello Jerry.

I have been going through the BNA to see what the earliest newspapers reported on that account.
It appears the wording in the earliest accounts say, "who answered the published description of the man wanted for the murder, etc".

Blotchy's description was never published as the wanted man. The description of the Hutchinson suspect was widely published on the morning of the 13th.
So it would appear the Echo inserted the wrong details in their account of the same story.

Do you have any thoughts on your question?

I guess anytime we have conflicting press reports I have questions. lol

So you are saying it would be a man with an astrakhan coat seen in Battersea and Queen Victoria Street and not the blotchy faced man, correct? I don't know either way. I was thinking the other way around, but now I'm not sure.

Wickerman
12-18-2017, 06:40 PM
Hi Robert.

Ok, now I see where you were coming from.
It would appear to be an error in their choice of wording in the article from the 19th.
As to the subsequent points you make, it may be well to mention the Echo also claimed the two forces (City & Met) were following two different suspects.

Here, on the 13th, they wrote:

(Ref: a 'shabby-genteel' looking man with a 'sandy' moustache)
"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."
Echo, 13 Nov.

[Note: Personally, I suspect the Star used this prior report by the Echo to speculate that Hutchinson must have been discredited for the Met to have been "induced" to attach more significance to the Cox suspect.
This is the reason, in my opinion, why the Star give no reason for their "discredited" story which they published the next day.
They obtained irinformation from a written source (the Echo), not a direct source in person (the police), where they could ask questions.
The Met police were not talking to the Star reporters, these reporters were complaining in print on that very point. And, when comparing some articles from the Star we can see they robbed them from other newspapers]

I was focusing in on the "declared... at the inquest" part of the report/sentence. Could only think of Mary Ann... no wait... sorry... just hit me... they use the word "witnesses" in that sentence. The Star must be talking about Mrs. Cox and Mrs. Maxwell, and letting 11:45p slide for "early morning". Really, who else from the inquest is left who matches the criteria?

I saw the press reports that have some police chasing this guy while others chase that guy, mystery within a mystery. "Police" can be a banner term too often; maybe it was a divisional thing.

The tone in some newspapers downplay the value of Hutchinson's description to the police, as though it already matched the police's general composite. I'm wondering if they were more interested in his statement because they were working off a 3-to-4 am time of death

Wickerman
12-18-2017, 07:04 PM
I guess anytime we have conflicting press reports I have questions. lol

So you are saying it would be a man with an astrakhan coat seen in Battersea and Queen Victoria Street and not the blotchy faced man, correct? I don't know either way. I was thinking the other way around, but now I'm not sure.

Hi Jerry.

Official descriptions issued by the police are very brief and to the point. Here are a few from the Double-event:

"At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

"Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W.

"At 1.35 a.m., 30th Sept., with Catherine Eddows, in Church-passage, leading to Mitre-square, where she was found murdered at 1.45 a.m., same date, a man, age 30, height 5ft 7 or 8in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap, with peak of the same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.

"Information respecting this man to be forwarded to Inspector M'William, 26, Old Jewry, London, E.C."



The official description of Hutchinson's suspect published on the 13th Nov. is presented in the same fashion.

He was about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, and 34 or 35 years of age, with dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long, dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, a white collar with a black necktie, in which was affixed a horse-shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark gaiters with light buttons, over button boots, and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain.

The Cox suspect - Blotchy, never received the same attention.

Sam Flynn
12-19-2017, 12:36 AM
[Note: Personally, I suspect the Star used this prior report by the Echo to speculate that Hutchinson must have been discreditedNote that the Star article says that the STORY was discredited (possibly meaning "disbelieved") , not that Hutchinson himself had been found wanting as a witness. It's an important distinction, which I was at pains to point out to Ben, amongst other Hutch-as-Ripper enthusiasts.

Michael W Richards
12-19-2017, 03:46 AM
IOW, George had no clue that his statement was going to make the evening news or get him an interview with Abberline. He probably didn't know where his info was going to fit in with the police investigation; it just so happened the police attached some importance to his statement and forwarded it up the chain, making his name forever more part of Ripperology.

[/I]

Hi Robert,

I differ with that opinion. I think George Hutchinson had access to all the information publically available to him as early as Saturday morning, and knew well that a Blotchy faced person was the last seen with Mary Kelly. That is by witnesses who resided in that court on that night.

I think his statement was purposefully given, but not to aid the investigation. It was to misdirect it. Wideawake Man was the most pertinent fact that went into the decision for the pardon offer, imho. This character was seen by the police as someone who likely had ties with the goings on in the courtyard. To step into those shoes figuratively is a daunting proposition, so one would think that it must have been an important reason for him to do it. The notion it was to help find the killer of a friend is again, dispensed with, based on the delay.

I believe it was to diffuse the suspicions about Wideawake, I don't think that person wanted to be exposed to scrutiny.

As an aside, Ive often wondered just what in the fireplace ashes might remain hidden through 1 sieving, and require a second one Saturday morning by no less than Abberline Himself, I believe Reid, and a few others that reported to Abberline from close quarters. Might it be related to this Wideawake character? Could the thing in the ashes be tiny fragments of stamps?

Wickerman
12-19-2017, 05:42 AM
Note that the Star article says that the STORY was discredited (possibly meaning "disbelieved") , not that Hutchinson himself had been found wanting as a witness. It's an important distinction, which I was at pains to point out to Ben, amongst other Hutch-as-Ripper enthusiasts.

Yes, I do remember you making that point to Ben more than once.
We have to remember though, the press didn't know the details of the investigation. Then there is the fact that we read of the continued interest by police in the Hutchinson suspect over the next several days, from this it is apparent that Hutchinson's story as a whole was still believed.
So either way you look at it the claim by the Star was false. If they had meant that only part of his story was deficient, then we might be able to give them the benefit of the doubt, as we are in no position to question the entire report.

Michael W Richards
12-19-2017, 06:03 AM
Yes, I do remember you making that point to Ben more than once.
We have to remember though, the press didn't know the details of the investigation. Then there is the fact that we read of the continued interest by police in the Hutchinson suspect over the next several days, from this it is apparent that Hutchinson's story as a whole was still believed.
So either way you look at it the claim by the Star was false. If they had meant that only part of his story was deficient, then we might be able to give them the benefit of the doubt, as we are in no position to question the entire report.

If they disbelieved any component of his story...in particular the lavishly detailed suspect description, then the Star article would be valid. People like yourself trash the Star at any opportunity, but it was following this story as eagerly as The Times and was more likely to publish stories that could not be validated by secondary sources. They, unlike most of the rest, didn't just rely on Central News.

I think most everyone can see that there was an agenda with his coming forward, after all it had been planned for over 4 days.

Wickerman
12-19-2017, 07:21 AM
If they disbelieved any component of his story...in particular the lavishly detailed suspect description, then the Star article would be valid.

Like I've already explained. There are no half measures in a discredited story, it's either all or nothing. Had they said the story was "partly discredited" then your point would be true, but they didn't. So moving the goal posts in defense of your own theory is another indication of desperation to salvage an argument.


People like yourself trash the Star at any opportunity,..

People better qualified than myself have trashed the Star, because unlike you, they have actually researched the 19th century press and know all about the politics of how this newspaper came into being, and what the agenda of their chief Editor, the Irish Nationalist, T. P. O'Connor was.
He had also been a journalist for the Pall Mall Gazette, another controversial newspaper of the time.
Controversy gets attention and attention sells copy. Truth doesn't always put food on the table.


.....but it was following this story as eagerly as The Times and was more likely to publish stories that could not be validated by secondary sources. They, unlike most of the rest, didn't just rely on Central News.

The Star being an evening paper often lifted their evening stories from the dailies, like Telegraph, or the Times. So don't be deceived if you read the Star covering the same story as the Times, check the wording verbatim, in both versions. The Star have copied Times articles, which doesn't mean they have "eagerly" pursued the story, just copied it.

I think most everyone can see that there was an agenda with his coming forward, after all it had been planned for over 4 days.

What 'plan' is this?
Or, is this more speculation?

Michael W Richards
12-19-2017, 10:13 AM
What 'plan' is this?
Or, is this more speculation?


I think discarding a primary source of the time altogether based on some predjudiced opinion of their integrity isn't wise, but that's your choice. As to the "plan", surely youre not taking another indefensible position that he decided spontaneously at 4pm Monday to come forward? Had the encounter and sighting been authentic he surely would have been planning on coming forward at some point...in this case, just not early enough to be of any value to the investigation.

Michael W Richards
12-19-2017, 10:18 AM
By the by, it is pure speculation that the Canonical Group were all murdered by a single individual nicknamed Jack the Ripper....so you and oh so many others live in the same glass house I do. The only difference is that your belief has been tested for over 125 years and still remains unproven. Mine hasn't been vetted by anything more than modern opinions.

Wickerman
12-19-2017, 12:52 PM
I think discarding a primary source of the time altogether based on some predjudiced opinion of their integrity isn't wise, but that's your choice.

But I'm not discarding it, thats the point, it was already discarded.
It's just yourself and a handful of others who turn a blind eye to the fact.

The claim by the Star was already redundant by their own reporters the very next day when they reported the Galloway sighting and the response that the constable was "looking for a man of a very different appearance". Very Different to Blotchy - Astrachan, he was the only other prime suspect.

Michael, answer this question - how can the Star write on the 15th that Hutchinson's story is discredited, then on the 16th write that a Met. constable is looking for the Hutchinson suspect?
Hutchinson cannot be dismissed as a viable witness, and accepted as a viable witness, at the same time.

And, just to rub it in, on the 19th, the Echo report the police are equally interested in both suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan.
This isn't me rejecting a viable source (the Star), the source was not trustworthy by their own admission, and the claim by the Star was superseded by the Echo four days later.

I'm the one who is following the evidence, as it transpires, in sequence, whereas you are the one who is rejecting later sources.
Why is that Michael?


As to the "plan", surely you're not taking another indefensible position that he decided spontaneously at 4pm Monday to come forward? Had the encounter and sighting been authentic he surely would have been planning on coming forward at some point...in this case, just not early enough to be of any value to the investigation.

We have Hutchinson's own words that a fellow lodger talked him in to coming forward, so he doesn't say he suddenly decided to go to police himself.

Wickerman
12-19-2017, 01:08 PM
By the by, it is pure speculation that the Canonical Group were all murdered by a single individual nicknamed Jack the Ripper....so you and oh so many others live in the same glass house I do. The only difference is that your belief has been tested for over 125 years and still remains unproven. Mine hasn't been vetted by anything more than modern opinions.

Absolutely, there are many issues in this case that can only be addressed by modern assumptions. We need to assume when there are no clear indications to guide us. This is not the case with this "discredited" nonsense.
The Star themselves contradict their own story of the previous day, plus we have a different newspaper confirming that contradiction.

Why would you support the claim by the Star, on the 15th, when they contradict their own story on the 16th?

Varqm
12-19-2017, 01:27 PM
There was a large lodging-house directly opposite the entrance to Miller's Court, so it's not inconceivable that the man seen by Lewis was one of the lodgers, or perhaps a member of staff, who'd nipped outside for a breath of air.


Highly unlikely.The police did a house-to-house search,that's how they come upon Mary Cusins(?) and story of Joseph Isaacs.And at least
one reporter went to dorset st.,Echo London, U.K 10 November 1888 IN A DORSET-STREET "DOSS-HOUSE"(which was kind of similar to Hutch's
story -time and giving money).More likely the lodger's story/rumors would come out.

---

It's hard to discuss with some posters, whose logic is off,Kennedy and Lewis not the same,even an 16 year old would know they were.