PDA

View Full Version : The Red Handkerchief...


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Chava
04-01-2008, 08:22 PM
...Where is it?

According to Hutchinson's official statement:

She said she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled his handkerchief, a red one, and gave it to her.

So where did it go? It's not mentioned at the scene at all, and I think they would look for it among the burnt bits of cloth after what he told them. Even if it burned, material charrs and rarely gets entirely destroyed. They should have been able to find some evidence of it but if they did, it's not mentioned. Maybe another reason not to lend a huge amount of credence to this guy?

Ben
04-01-2008, 08:31 PM
Hi Chava,

Conspiracists will no doubt intimate that police did find it, which is why Abberline believed him! The problem with this scenario is twofold: A) Why no mention of it in the initial report? And B) Why, in light of this corroboratory red reg, did they discard his evidence eventually?

In all likelihood, the hanky never existed, and Hutchinson had merely "borrowed" that detail from Lawende's Church Pasage description. Even if they did find such an item, it would only confirm the presence of a red handkerchief in the room, not Hutchinson's version of how it got there, meaning it could have belonged to Hutchinson himself.

All the best,
Ben

Simon Wood
04-01-2008, 08:36 PM
Hi All,

It's been mentioned before, but how did GH determine the handkerchief was red when gaslight (which burns with a greenish hue) renders red objects as either brown or black?

Regards,

Simon

Natalie Severn
04-01-2008, 10:48 PM
Hi All,

It's been mentioned before, but how did GH determine the handkerchief was red when gaslight (which burns with a greenish hue) renders red objects as either brown or black?

Regards,

Simon
.....but Simon,Lawende allegedly saw a man with a red handkerchief round his neck in the even more dimly lit Church Passage.
Best
Natalie

Sam Flynn
04-01-2008, 10:59 PM
.....but Simon,Lawende allegedly saw a man with a red handkerchief round his neck in the even more dimly lit Church Passage.
Then again, Lawende was Jewish - and Jews, as we know, eat a lot of carrots.







...scrub that. I got "rabbits" and "rabbis" muddled up ;)

richardnunweek
04-01-2008, 11:20 PM
Hi Guys,
I am not so much intrested in the actual colour, of the alleged hankerchief, more so Kellys request for one.
'Oh I have lost my hankerchief'.
Two points that spring to mind are, the term 'Oh' [ as in 'Oh murder'] also the obvious use of requiring a hanky,, is to wipe ones nose, or blow it, which could indicate a possible infection.
The statement made by Maxwell as I have many times on Casebook mentioned, contained the following observation, 'Her eyes looked queer as if suffering from a heavy cold'.[this is apparently quoted from a missing part of her statement, which I read in the early seventies].
The nearest I have read with similiar details is from McComack in which it is mentioned as the term'All muffed up with cold'.
The significance of that is obvious.
If two independant witness ie, Hutchinson/Maxwell observed that the woman described as Mjk .
a] Reguired the use of a hanky at 2am
b]looked like she was 'in cold' at 815am.
Then Mary Kelly had to be killed after Maxwells last sighting, or the woman found in room 13 was not her.
Regards Richard.

Natalie Severn
04-01-2008, 11:24 PM
Then again, Lawende was Jewish - and Jews, as we know, eat a lot of carrots.

Yes and as the Welsh eat a lot of leeks they have started to see green dragons Sam!







...scrub that. I got "rabbits" and "rabbis" muddled up ;)

:lol: :lol:[hey how did that happen----that was my joke about the dragons!]

Graham
04-01-2008, 11:36 PM
As I'm half-Jewish, would the hankie have appeared orange to me?

(Nod to G Marx)

Cheers,

Graham

richardnunweek
04-01-2008, 11:52 PM
Hi,
The simple fact we all forget, Victorian eyeset was used to the light that us in modern times cannot comprehend, they were use to gaslight/candlelight, and therefore items of colour, would have been described as seen, and not thought of as suspicious by the media/police during that period.
Regards Richard.

Simon Wood
04-02-2008, 12:07 AM
Hi Natalie,

Red kerchiefs!

Gadzooks! Scotland Yard's finest had at last latched onto a clue.

Two or more so years after Mitre Square, Lawende was asked to identify Sadler, hauled up for something or other and also on the off chance of being JtR.

BUT—

Sadler was twenty years older than the man Lawende described seeing in Church Passage. He also had sticky-out ears—something Lawende didn't mention and couldn't have missed.

Two red neckerchiefs in thirty months. What an amazing coincidence!

Now, I ask you . . .

Regards,

Simon

Natalie Severn
04-02-2008, 12:28 AM
But they dont seem to have bothered much over the red kerchiefs thing.Maybe everyone had one?
But sure----it does sound a bit like a pantomime sometimes or a farce.

paul emmett
04-02-2008, 12:58 AM
'Oh I have lost my hankerchief'.
Two points that spring to mind are, the term 'Oh' [ as in 'Oh murder']

Hello, Richard. I find your point here interesting, espescially since Maxwell quotes Kelly as saying, "Oh! I do feel so bad! Oh Carry I feel so bad!" But I can't find the "Oh" in the handkerchief quote. The sources I have just say, "I've lost my . . .."

Chava
04-02-2008, 01:59 AM
Yes, but a handkerchief had many uses, and in those days and for a long time afterwards 'handkerchief' also meant 'scarf' or 'neckchief'. A lot of working-class people of both genders wore a handkerchief around their necks. So I wouldn't bet the farm on Kelly having a cold...

Celesta
04-02-2008, 02:18 AM
...Where is it?

According to Hutchinson's official statement:



So where did it go? It's not mentioned at the scene at all, and I think they would look for it among the burnt bits of cloth after what he told them. Even if it burned, material charrs and rarely gets entirely destroyed. They should have been able to find some evidence of it but if they did, it's not mentioned. Maybe another reason not to lend a huge amount of credence to this guy?

Hi Chava! Long time no bump into, here! I, too, have wondered about this little hankie. I wonder if it might have been burned along with some of the items that were burned. Assuming, of course, GH wasn't making it up. Those little kerchiefs were popular. Take care. C.

Chava
04-02-2008, 04:10 AM
Hi Celesta!

Actually those kerchiefs weren't all that little. I'd say they were at least 18" square and were used for all kinds of things. Even if it were burnt, I'd guess bits of it would be left and could be identified. My guess is that was the detail that sank Hutchinson's witness statement. Someone probably noted that the scarf was missing and pointed that out to Abberline etc. It's a shame, because Hutchinson's statement was as good as a play. You could see it all happen. But he got carried away and the whole thing just fell apart. The sad thing is that he may well have seen Kelly with a man. But he embellished and embellished. He heard everything they said to each other. He saw every detail, every speck on that horseshoe tiepin. By the time he finished he was totally unbelievable IMO.

Bob Hinton
04-02-2008, 12:06 PM
Hi,
The simple fact we all forget, Victorian eyeset was used to the light that us in modern times cannot comprehend, they were use to gaslight/candlelight, and therefore items of colour, would have been described as seen, and not thought of as suspicious by the media/police during that period.
Regards Richard.


for this to be correct you would have to re write the laws of physics dealing with light transmission.

The human eye in comparison with some animal eyes are very poor collectors of lightwaves.

In the dark or near dark all light colours appear grey to us and all dark colours appear black.

Fisherman
04-02-2008, 12:48 PM
Hello all!

This issue was up on the old boards too, and that time I contributed a little something that I think may go to explain the riddle of the red hanky (although I do not believe in Hutchinsons evidence...)

We know that Hutch claimed that he took a really good look at Astrakhan man. He himself described how he stooped down to look him in the face, meaning that he would not have been more than the fewest of feet from him.
If Astrakhan was wearing his hanky in his waistcoat pocket, it may have been very clearly visible at that time. There is of course also the chance that there may have been additional light coming from a window or streetlamp at the very spot where the supposed encounter took place. Afterwards, he of course did not need to discern the colur of the hanky in the darkness outside the court, and from a distance; if he had picked up on it before, that would be it. After all, nobody questions Hutch´s pointing out of a similarly red stone seal on the goldchain he was supposedly wearing; we just assume he saw it and recognized the colour at the close encounter.

This, I feel, means that we can hardly rule Hutch out on the hanky issue.

The best,
Fisherman

richardnunweek
04-02-2008, 01:06 PM
Hi Fisherman,
Absolutely right, if Gh clearly described the hankerchief to the police as red, then he must have had good reason for doing so, and you mentioned a possible one,
I still maintain that Victorian eyesight was more observant then ours in darkness, not because of laws of 'Physics'.but people had a knack of describing items because of way of life, also because that was normal, the media, and the police would not have applied modern day reasoning.
Of course the hankerchief could have been, according to todays reckoning, not red, but so what, the witness described red, and went in his statement.
So whats the big deal?.
Regards Richard.

Chava
04-02-2008, 01:27 PM
Yes, but the handkerchief is still missing in action, so its colour is moot. If it had been burned in the fire, there would still be identifiable bits left--they certainly could identify the other bits of material in there.

Chris Scott
04-02-2008, 01:35 PM
IF there is truth - whole or partial - in Hutchinson's account is a whole different matter but, if there were, then the man seen with Kelly must have been only too aware that Hutchinson was taking a much more than casual interest in the couple. Hutchinson staring him determinedly in the face and following the couple into Dorset Street could not have gone unnoticed.
The alleged handing over of the handkerchief took place in Dorset Street itself before the couple went up the court to Kelly's room. If Hutchinson was close enough to hear what Kelly at least was saying ("Alright my dear. come along, you will be comfortable) then I think it's a fair bet the man knew that Hutchinson was there, following them.
In light of the above, would not the most logical explanantion of the fate of the red handkerchief be that the killer took it with him when he left?
Chris

anna
04-02-2008, 03:32 PM
Hi all,b it obvious I know,but, perhaps Jack put the heart etc in the red hankie...so no bloodstains visible as he made his escape through the streets.I would think she used the "oh" as part of her speech....rather like "erm"....I was also wondering if the eyes and cold appearance has anything to do with drug taking..would be interesting to know if she sniffed also.There is the question of her own bonnet....as someone says she wasn't wearing one....indicating to me that she owned one herself,the other all seem to...I presume it is part and parcel of their outfits..like the apron.

Natalie Severn
04-02-2008, 03:35 PM
Yes,absolutely correct Chris. Its the main reason I doubt the evidence he gave,it has nothing to do with him standing waiting etc, which I think could just have been a tired and rain sodden Hutch hoping Mary would take him in after Mr A had left.But my impression of the Ripper,if it was just one man,is that he would not have been seen like this,going off up to Millers Court with Mary Kelly etc.waving a red handkerchief in the air.Everything he did suggests he took great care not to be seen------and certainly would have taken care not to have been seen hanging outside Mary"s room for nearly an hour like Hutchinson claims he did----ie before, as some suggest, he hopped in and killed her in a fashion that caused pandemonium throughout the land-if not the World-and moreover would have meant signing his own certain death warrant by the hangman"s noose,had anyone at all actually seen him enter her room.
Best
Natalie

perrymason
04-02-2008, 04:35 PM
Hello all,

Since we know very little about what specifically was found in Mary Kelly's room, there is room for speculation that a red handkerchief, or maybe a blue one may have been found in there.

And since we already know that police believed Hutchinson was not telling the truth before the end of that same week anyway....maybe its because he fudged the color of that handkerchief found. :wink:

I think we have only the single man with red hanky, as seen by Lawende...or more accurately was seen,... but he could'nt be counted on to identify it later ...as applies to the suspect as a whole.

My best regards

Ben
04-02-2008, 04:43 PM
If Astrakhan was wearing his hanky in his waistcoat pocket, it may have been very clearly visible at that time.

Not at all, Fish.

A handkerchief under two coats is not going to visible either at close quarters or from a distance. It will be concealed by the coats, and cloaked by the darkness of the night, and even if it did poke out, it still wouldn't have shown up as red. In order to notice such an item, you must be paying particular attention to it, but that would be at the expense of all the other accessorial detail he claimed - impossibly - to have noticed.

Hi Chris,

If Hutchinson was close enough to hear what Kelly at least was saying ("Alright my dear. come along, you will be comfortable) then I think it's a fair bet the man knew that Hutchinson was there, following them.
In light of the above, would not the most logical explanantion of the fate of the red handkerchief be that the killer took it with him when he left?

Possibly, but it's offset by the illogicality of the killer committing murder most horrid in the full and certain knowledge that a potential vigilante or plain-clothes copper or informer had just observed him at close quarters before following and essentially stalking him.

Red herrings (literally!) have cropped up in murder investigations before. Ian Huntley's bogus witness sighting involved a red fiesta. Huntley's own car? A red fiesta. And it is likely that he'd been seen driving it by genuine witnesses.

Natalie Severn
04-02-2008, 05:40 PM
[QUOTE=perrymason;9881]Hello all,

Since we know very little about what specifically was found in Mary Kelly's room, there is room for speculation that a red handkerchief, or maybe a blue one may have been found in there.

And since we already know that police believed Hutchinson was not telling the truth before the end of that same week anyway....maybe its because he fudged the color of that handkerchief found. :wink:


Do we "know" they didnt believe him Mike?
Knowing Robert Anderson had already assigned Dr Bond to trash a few doctor"s statements on the day after Mary"s death [Nov 10th] I wouldnt be at all surprised if he had a few other tricks up his sleeve
and already had someone "in the wings" ready to wheel on ,in order to rubbish his statement.He probably had already "verbally advised "Swanson to rubbish Hutch"s statement and press on like the clappers with finding a suitable "Polish Jew" from the "lower classes"!

:wink:

Ben
04-02-2008, 05:45 PM
The grandiose Bond-Anderson conspiracy of suppressing and manipulating evidence to support a theory that didn't exist yet continues....! ;)

perrymason
04-02-2008, 06:06 PM
Hi Nats,

Do we know they didn't believe him?

Well,...I can only conclude from a suspect description mentioned Nov 16th, that of Blotchy Man, that they didn't believe him about Astrakan at that time, since he was the "suspect" description as of the evening of Monday the 12th.

Understanding how Abberline could be fooled, or must have felt, is irrelevant when assessing Hutchinson's suspect, ...Mary's suspect, or rather the last man seen with her to this day, is Blotchy Man, in the last few minutes of November 8th,.. has been since Nov 16th, 1888...what is more interesting to me is the modern day efforts to elevate him to "trustworthy" again....after the contemporary police made that call long ago, based on what, who knows...(theres barely enough surviving documentation left from Kelly's investigation to know anything about that crime).

So...thats why my sarcasm, a thread question that is based on the description provided by a man after the inquest... that changed the suspect profile for 3 days, and was subsequently changed to revert back to the suspect seen as stated in the inquest by Mary Ann Cox, isn't going to lead to answers to anyones questions about that night.

My best Natalie, all.

Chava
04-02-2008, 07:25 PM
Hi Natalie, Hi Perry,

Natalie, I agree. I very much doubt that the Ripper would proceed with a murder knowing that a young and probably stronger man--let's not forget that he 'stooped down' to look Mr A in the face--not only followed him with the victim but hung around outside. At least we don't know that 'Mr A' looked out to check but I can't believe he didn't after having been scrutinized full in the face like that. There are no circumstances that I can think of where an intelligent murderer would kill when there is a possible witness outside who is going to be difficult to silence. That is one reason why I don't trust Hutchinson's evidence at all.

...and Perry, the second reason is the disappearing red handkerchief. Which is why I started the thread. No handkerchief appears. Now it's possible that the killer took it with him as Chris suggests. Conjures up a lovely scenario of a murderer dancing round a bloody corpse thinking 'she put it somewhere! Where the hell did she put it???' Maybe that's the reason for the body staging. He picked up the breast and it wasn't underneath so he tucked the breast under the head to make sure he didn't pick it up again...

But you know what? I just don't think so. Fingerprint evidence wasn't in use then, so no reason to take the hanky unless he wanted something to wipe his knife/fingers like the Eddowes cloth. And if he wanted to do that or transport his trophy, well there was a ton of material burning in the fireplace. I'm sure he could have cut off a swatch if necessary. And if this was an Eddowes scenario, I'd expect to find that hanky discarded somewhere along the way. But it wasn't.

Jon Guy
04-02-2008, 07:31 PM
Hi Chava

If there was red handkerchief, I reckon it would have been found amongst Kelly`s clothes on the chair by the foot of her bed.

perrymason
04-02-2008, 08:19 PM
Hi again,

I'm sure anyone who knows me knows what I think of Hutchinson...I think he was a suspect that made up a suspect...maybe only due to Sarah Lewis.

But I believe the only things found in the fire were what was mentioned, (Abberline and others actually sieved the ashes themselves Saturday morning..I believe to look for traces of the heart they now knew was missing after re-assembling Mary yesterday afternoon), the "folded" clothes...(which I personally believe was Maria's take-in laundry that she brought over and the two of them did together Thursday afternoon, hence the visible tin bath in MJK1).....Marys clothes, (which I believe were not the ones referred to as "folded"), and some artifacts like a clay pipe.

I believe your correct Chava when you say had she received one, it would be there, or traces in the fire, or removed by the killer when he leaves. Since only Hutch would know that hanky was given to her, and therefore might be traced back to someone as the "giver" of such gifts on her death night, he would be the only guy who would think to take it.

Either way....there was no Astrakan, or there was, and the hanky story is also accurate...Hutchinson smells like a Fish Market.

My best regards

Chava
04-02-2008, 09:08 PM
Oh I agree. Hutchinson stinks like a ten-day-old mackerel.

Sam Flynn
04-02-2008, 10:07 PM
Oh I agree. Hutchinson stinks like a ten-day-old mackerel.Don't ten-day-old mackerel start to glow in the dark? Perhaps that boosted the ambient light around Hutchinson sufficiently for him to tell what colour the hankie was. On the other hand, perhaps "Hutch" was his nickname because he could see in the dark like a rabbi.

PS: Re. Victorians being used to the low levels of light and thus being able to discern colours more effectively than us... can't be, I'm afraid. It's partly to do with physics, and partly with biology. The cone cells (the colour receptors of the eye) become less and less effective with progressively dimmer light - and the ability to distinguish colours gets gradually worse as a result. This is wired into the biology of the cells of the eye, and this won't have changed much (if at all) in a mere 120 years.

Suffice to say that a tipping point exists before which colours can be discerned, after which it becomes tricky and then practically impossible. Colour-blindness and individual differences aside, that threshold is largely determined by the quality and quantity of ambient light available. On that basis we can't definitively say that it was impossible for Hutch to have seen a red handkerchief without knowing precisely what lighting conditions prevailed at the time.

It may well be impossible to perceive a handkerchief as "red" when seen by gaslight on a cloudy, moonless night - but I don't honestly know for certain. It should be fairly easy to test, however.

Chava
04-02-2008, 10:36 PM
:) Sam!

Maybe that's what killed his credibility with Abberline. Who road-tested a red handkerchief under the light in question and realized he couldn't tell what colour it was!

It's always interesting how people trip themselves up. Just that one small detail, and it makes a nonsense of the whole statement!

Tresschen
03-10-2009, 10:17 PM
I agree that the killer probably wouldn`t have killed MJK, if he knew there was someone who had seen him and was still nearby.
I am not so sure about the whole Hutchinson-affair, yet, but I am trying to think through every possibility.
One thing I just think important to say is: handkerchiefs at that time often bore the initials of the owner, so there could really be a reason for the ripper to take it with him.

Convert
04-01-2009, 05:14 AM
At the moment I am far from convinced that GH had anything to do with the murder of MJK but i will leave that for another thread.
With regards to the red hanky, despite poor lighting conditions, etc, I think GH could have indicated it was red in his personal belief, as that is what he thought he saw. He may have been mistaken in its color, it may not have been found in MJK's room as it was totally destroyed in the fire or at least beyond any recognition or even taken by the killer as he is described as an organized serial killer and doesn't leave personel items at the crime scene.

Ben
04-02-2009, 02:49 AM
With regards to the red hanky, despite poor lighting conditions, etc, I think GH could have indicated it was red in his personal belief, as that is what he thought he saw.

If he was standing at the corner of Dorset Street while this alleged hanky transfer was taking place, we also have the problem of his claim to have heard a specific snippet of dialogue - "Come along my dear, you will be comfortable" - from that distance, which stikes me as most implausible unless Kelly was shouting very loudly indeed. Try it yourself if ever you get an opportunity to visit the site.

You can only take the argument that Hutchinson "believed" he saw things that he couldn't have so far. The idea that he noticed and committed to memory a horseshoe tie-pin, for example, in addition to a myriad of other accessorial and clothing details within a fleeting moment. You can't just believe you saw such a specific item. Eithe he invented it, or he really saw it, and the latter option is clearly ludicrous.

This is where the "confabulation" explanation falls short for me.

Welcome, by the way!

Ben

Malcolm X
04-02-2009, 03:29 AM
Hi All,

It's been mentioned before, but how did GH determine the handkerchief was red when gaslight (which burns with a greenish hue) renders red objects as either brown or black?

Regards,

Simon

yup, in fact that late at night all colours are muted..they'd all be shades of dark grey.... try it yourself go outside right now, HUTCHINSON's statement is riddled with faults; he saw way too much detail..e.g noticing exactly what the parcel in his hand looked like......American cloth/straps, how the hell could you tell that at 3am on a drizzly rainy dark night..........cloud cover, no moon and very weak street lighting

more like, ``he had a parcel in his hand..or a packet or something``............nearly everyone would be asleep, so the ambient lighting would be poor...

Malcolm X
04-02-2009, 03:42 AM
street lights are nearly all on one side of the street only, now which side of the street was kelly walking back on, no idea, for him to see that much detail he'd have to be very close indeed ( i have to mention this because i dont know exactly how powerful those street lights were, so he might've seen quite a lot) ...........even so, no more than 50% of what he sais.

what he wouldn't notice is a red handkerchief and the red stone ( on a chain) and highly doubtful that he'd notice that horseshoe pin.

but he would definitely notice the coat/ hat/ button boots and gaiters..but i doubt the white buttons.........good grief when i read it again, it looks like garbage!..... i go for about 50% accurate, which means as far as i'm concerned he's lieing through his back teeth......i'm off to bed, good night

Pablito
04-02-2009, 04:02 AM
a while ago someone posted something about Hutchinson's son, that he had given a detailed statement to a particular author in the mid - nineties, and someone on these boards had managed to obtain Hutchinson's signature. Who was it on these boards who managed to get his signature please? Sorry i can't find the original thread.

IchabodCrane
04-02-2009, 04:06 AM
Hello Pablito,

the thread is here http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=78027

But take your time, it is quite long...
Best wishes,
IchabodCrane

Mr.Hyde
04-02-2009, 04:53 AM
Think the gas street lights were put out from 11PM.

Convert
04-02-2009, 05:20 AM
Hey Ben, thanks for the welcome mate.

In your post:
"If he was standing at the corner of Dorset Street while this alleged hanky transfer was taking place, we also have the problem of his claim to have heard a specific snippet of dialogue - "Come along my dear, you will be comfortable" - from that distance, which stikes me as most implausible unless Kelly was shouting very loudly indeed. Try it yourself if ever you get an opportunity to visit the site".

In GH statement to police on 12th he saids he was standing outside the Queen's Headagainst the lamp and watched them. They went past him and into Dorset Street and he, ie GH, followed them. So from this we can gather he had left the corner and followed them some way down Dorset street making it not impossible that he did hear this dialogue correctly while the stranger and Kelly were at the corner of Millers Court. He does not mention where exactly or how far he was from the couple.
(Does anybody know if the Queens Head is on the corner of Dorset and Commercial Streets or on Commercial Street alone,ie in between Dorset and Whites Row?)

In his second interview that he gave the press on the 13th, he states he followed tham as far as the corner (ie Dorset and Commercial Streets)and watched them at the entrance to Millers Court. He then saids Mary states loudly "I have lost my handkerchief". And the stranger provides her with a red one.
Nowhere in this interview does he claim to have heard anything else concisely from Mary or the stranger. He does mention they are talking together but he cannot hear.

Although there is a slight descrepancy between the two interviews, I would favor the first one given to police. I believe GH was an honest witness due to a crush he had on MJK and this is the reason for his precision in description of the stranger. He was making a jeolous observation of this man. Although some of his testimony may not be accurate (to the point of been more of a guess)it was to the best of his belief.

The color of the handkerchief could have been determined when the couple passed him under the lamp as it could have been sticking out of his pocket as was the custom at the time.

Ben
04-02-2009, 03:12 PM
Hi Convert,

They went past him and into Dorset Street and he, ie GH, followed them. So from this we can gather he had left the corner and followed them some way down Dorset street making it not impossible that he did hear this dialogue correctly while the stranger and Kelly were at the corner of Millers Court.

The newspaper versions of his account elaborate somewhat. After the Queen's Head encounter, Hutchinson claimed to have followed them across the road and stood at the corner of Dorset Street while Kelly and Astrakhan hovered at the entrance to Miller's Court for "about three minutes". In addition to it being highly improbable that he heard the alleged dialogue from that vantage point, the idea that he ventured further down Dorset Street raises even more questions:

If all three were already some distance into Dorset Street at the time, just how oblivious did Kelly and Astrakhan have to be to avoid noticting Hutchinson following them all the way from the pub and then hovering in extremely close proximity?

For the record, the Queen's Head was not in Dorset Street but across Commerical Street, on the corner of Fashion Street.

Nowhere in this interview does he claim to have heard anything else concisely from Mary or the stranger. He does mention they are talking together but he cannot hear

I don't think he ever mentioned that he couldn't hear what was being said. A claim to have heard just one sentence is implausible enough from that distance - the corner of Dorset Street to the entrance to Miller's Court. It would have to be incredibly loud, slowly spoken, and with great articulation to have been heard from that distance.

I believe GH was an honest witness due to a crush he had on MJK and this is the reason for his precision in description of the stranger. He was making a jeolous observation of this man.

I'm not quite sure how "jealousy" would have prompted Hutchinson to be any more "observant", or for that matter, how jealousy would bestow upon him some truly amazing powers of observation and recollection in such mitigating conditions. If his observations were simply to the best of his belief, I wouldn't expect such meticulous specificity of detail, both in terms of clothing and accessories.

As for the handkerchief, I don't believe it was customary at the time to have one sticking out of your overcoat pocket. If he had a handkerchief in any pocket, it would have been his waistcoat, and in that scenario, there's no way he could have noticed in at the alleged Queen's Head encounter, let alone memorize it.

Best regards,
Ben

Crystal
04-02-2009, 03:27 PM
Frankly, I don't believe a word of it. I think our George had been reading too many stories...

Convert
04-02-2009, 04:42 PM
I see your various points but still not convinced. I consider that GH first interview he gave to police to be an honest one. I feel that he finally did come forward to absolve himself of the crime and at the same time to commit himself to have any chance of reward money. If he stayed silent he may have thought he would have been tracked down later by police and treated with suspicion and also because if the culprit was caught he wouldnt share in any reward. I feel later reports to the press and elaborations he stated simply reflected his desire to be more involved in the crime so he would be entiltled to any reward. Therefore his claim to have followed them into Dorset Street could be very true. He didn't have to make himself obvious to the couple that he was following them, he could have walked past them and heard the dialogue and stopped further down the street and came back when the couple went into the court.

The press statements on the following days do elaborate on some aspects. For instance you point out where exactly he was when he was observing/eavesdropping on the two and its unlikely to have heard anything. However, the elaboration does not extend to what he heard, it gets diminished. He saids he heard MJK rather loudly exclaim she has lost her handkerchief while in the interview he gave police he claims to have overheard alot more.
In the instance of this witness, I do not believe the later reports of his accounts to the press are as important as to the original one he gave police. Due to the reasons above. I understand the descrepencies in later accounts but is this detail important? There seems to be conjecture in other threads as to who supplied the press with these accounts in the first place. If he is a truthful witness, and I believe he is, at least in most aspects of what he saw and heard, then I believe he saw MJK that night with the stranger he describes.
I also submit that jelousy or some such emotion would certainly enhance an overall interest in the stranger as I believe GH had a crush on MJK. We know he used to give her money on occasion and since he is poor class he wouldn't have done this with just anybody. He may have had sexual favors in return. So on the night in question he see's his women of affection and desire, and checks this stranger out. "Is he good looking, what is he wearing to impress her, etc"? And a folded handkerchief could well be sticking out of his coat pocket and remembering it was red as they passed under the lamp would not be in the realms of impossibilty.

Jon Guy
04-02-2009, 05:13 PM
Hello

I recently re-read "Oliver Twist", and I was struck by the number of times "handkerchiefs" are mentioned. Okay, I appreciate that Fagin and the boys made a point of pickpocketing them, but the Victorians still seemed to attach more importance to them. If they were considered a sign of your social standing then maybe it could explain Hutch`s eye for detail.

Ben
04-02-2009, 05:16 PM
I feel that he finally did come forward to absolve himself of the crime

But that's precisely what he didn't do, Convert.

If he wanted to "absolve himself of the crime", all he needed to do was provide himself with an alibi for where he really was at the generally accepted time of the murder. Since "walking about all night" is about the only alibiless activity he could have resorted to at the time, it's clear that he didn't provide an alibi, which means he couldn't have "absolved" himself of the crime. Part of his motivation for coming forward might have been to convince the police that he wasn't involved, but he could have done so falsely.

For example, when you say he "finally" came forward, it's essential to examine the timing of events. It became public knowledge on the afternoon of 12th November that Sarah Lewis had noticed a man standing opposite the court, apparently watching or waiting for someone at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly's death. Later that afternoon, Hutchinson came forward with a claim to have done precisely that. As far as I'm concerned, there is little escaping the conclusion that he realised he'd been seen and came forward to legitimize his presence.

I don't believe the incredibly implausible degree of detail is compatibile with a reward-seeking motive either. The more criteria you apply, the fewer the chance of a suspect fitting all of them being captured. If you keep the description vague and encompassing, you're likely to be describing a greater range of suspects, and the chances of a captured individual matching your description is markedly increased.

He didn't have to make himself obvious to the couple that he was following them, he could have walked past them and heard the dialogue and stopped further down the street and came back when the couple went into the court.

But that's not what he claimed in any version of his account. The only placement we have for him at the time of the alleged hanky exchange was at the corner of Dorset Street, and that was too great a distance to detect conversation. Unfortunately, we can't just "put" him at a more acceptable location just to make the account seem more plausible.

Due to the reasons above. I understand the descrepencies in later accounts but is this detail important?

Immeasurably so, since they compromise his initial verson of events in several key areas. Hutchinson's account was later discredited, according to The Star (which is later lent considerable weight by various reports, memoirs and interviews from senior police officials), snd the press re-tellings may have had something to do with it.

So on the night in question he see's his women of affection and desire, and checks this stranger out. "Is he good looking, what is he wearing to impress her, etc"?

If he was really thinking along those rather paranoid and obsessive lines, and if you rule out Hutchinson as Kelly's killer, we're essentially accepting that she was descended on by a stalker and and serial killer (independent entites) on the same night. I doubt very much that a working class prostitute needed impressing, and I doubt very much that any man needed to convey the impression of opulence in order to attract a Spitalfields prostitute.

And a folded handkerchief could well be sticking out of his coat pocket and remembering it was red as they passed under the lamp would not be in the realms of impossibilty.

Not his coat pocket, Convert. That would most unusual. Not wholly beyond the realms of possibility, perhaps, but one more stretch of faith needed in order to accept what was, after all, an account that was apparently dismissed shortly after its inception.

All the best,
Ben

Jon Guy
04-02-2009, 05:20 PM
Regarding Hutch`s statement, it is a shame we don`t have a record of whether the Police asked Hutch if he saw anyone else (Sarah Lewis) whilst he was waiting in Dorset St.

In his favour as a truthful statement, Sarah Lewis`s man was standing by Crossingham`s opposite Millers Court, whereas Hutchinson only says he waited three quarters of an hour after going up the court. He didn`t try to push the point that he was Lewis`s man.

edit :hello Ben. Just seen your post above.

Ben
04-02-2009, 05:25 PM
Hi Jon,

To be fair, that would only place them within feet of eachother, and the chances are slim that he'd remain rooted in one spot for the duration. Sarah Lewis only mentioned Crossingham's in her police statement, which Hutchinson would not have had access to.

Best regards,
Ben

DVV
04-02-2009, 05:30 PM
Hi Jon,
and shame also that we don't know if the police asked him: "Were you wearing a wideawake hat that night ?"

Amitiés,
David

Jon Guy
04-02-2009, 06:38 PM
Sarah Lewis only mentioned Crossingham's in her police statement, which Hutchinson would not have had access to.


Hello Ben

Sarah Lewis did state at the inquest that the man was opposite the Court, standing alone by the Lodging House.

I agree that he would not have stayed in the same spot for 45 mins, but the fact that he doesn`t state that he wandered across the road shows he didn`t attach importance to that detail, which is a good sign in believing he was there.

Jon Guy
04-02-2009, 06:43 PM
and shame also that we don't know if the police asked him: "Were you wearing a wideawake hat that night ?"


Hi David

But they would have had to trick him into answering that with a "loaded" question, as Lewis tells us at the inquest that the man was wearing a wideawake. She also states the man was stout and not tall, which Hutch must`ve been for Abberline to believe the whole scenario.

Malcolm X
04-02-2009, 07:32 PM
ok i found a map of Dorset st/ Thawl street/ Fashion st etc and i've noticed nothing strange, except that where Hutch was waiting ( corner of Dorset st) seems a long way from the entrance of Millers court..........

now, i've seen photos of the millers court arch on google and i see no Gas Lamp overhead or close by, so that area would've been in near pitch darkness..there is no way Hutch can detect red from that range.

when he went up millers court all was quiet and he saw no light on.

the only time when Hutch got a good view of LA DE DA was when he passed by at Fashion st, so he could only have noticed all of his ``finer clothing detailing/ jewellry/ horse shoe pin at that location.........uuum, doesn't seem right to me, at all and never has.

as for all the rest, BEN has that covered well; no need for me to repeat all that..........i agree entirely with him

Hutch recalls LA DE DA a day later to the press very similar, there are differences but not much............it looks like he's fixated a ``make believe`` personality in his mind very well indeed.

he looks like he's describing not only a posh ``theatrical jeckyl and hyde Jew, but also a member of the middle/ upper classes....almost like that Royal Conspiracy garbage, or a Sherlock Holmes type, i can imagine LA DE DA playing a Violin :laugh4:

DVV
04-02-2009, 07:49 PM
Hi David

But they would have had to trick him into answering that with a "loaded" question, as Lewis tells us at the inquest that the man was wearing a wideawake. She also states the man was stout and not tall, which Hutch must`ve been for Abberline to believe the whole scenario.

Yes Jon, true enough. Still, Abberline's report in incredibly terse. Why so, after what he considered to be the 6th murder, and as he thought Hutch's account was "important"?
From the police point if view, it seems that Hutch came and went... Just like love!

Amitiés,
David

DVV
04-02-2009, 07:54 PM
Hutch recalls LA DE DA a day later to the press very similar, there are differences but not much............it looks like he's fixated a ``make believe`` personality in his mind very well indeed.


Not sure, Malcolm,
How could you expect AM's complexion to become dark? It makes a BIG difference, in my opinion.

Amitiés,
David

Jon Guy
04-02-2009, 08:27 PM
Still, Abberline's report in incredibly terse. Why

Not terse my friend, just British ;)

richardnunweek
04-02-2009, 08:35 PM
Hi,
It would be intresting to know the Victorian definition of 'stout', Kelly being described as such, yet her limbs that are seen intact do not appear so.
As for Hutchinson, it is hard to imagine stoutness from the photo depicting Topping which appears on Casebook, also any person who could trek from Romford to Whitechapel, would proberly not be overweight for very long
His visits to the music hall, depicts to me a 'Dapper' individual, complete with cane, a man who took pride in his appearance, that enjoyed the arts, again does not come across as a Likely as a man carrying condition.
Not to mention his passion for ice skating, which i understand he was passionate about, would not indicate being of heavy build.
If Topping was the witness Hutchinson. [ others will disagree] then i would suggest that mayby Sarah Lewis did not see him , but someone else.
To change the subject .
Saturday is Grand National day, so we all must back[ i have] DARKNESS,
Why?
It is to be ridden by a jockey called Hutchinson......
Apt i feel.
Regards Richard.

DVV
04-02-2009, 08:44 PM
DARKNESS,
It is to be ridden by a jockey called Hutchinson......


Take care, Richard, he may run till Monday, 6 pm...

Amitiés,
David

Malcolm X
04-02-2009, 11:15 PM
Not sure, Malcolm,
How could you expect AM's complexion to become dark? It makes a BIG difference, in my opinion.

Amitiés,
David

sorry i dont understand that

DVV
04-02-2009, 11:35 PM
sorry i dont understand that

I'm sure you do, Malcolm.
At the police station, Hutch said the suspect was "pale complexioned".
But when he talked to the press, AM became dark complexioned.

Amitiés,
David

Malcolm X
04-02-2009, 11:36 PM
```However wonderful it is that the gas lamps don’t cause “light pollution", sadly they aren’t very good at illuminating uneven pavements at night. Anyone who walks along the Wells Road in the dark is wise to carry a torch to spot hazards under foot! In these energy conscious days, the gas lamps are woefully inefficient users of energy for street lighting. They give out as much heat as light and unfavourable comparisons with kitchen toasters have been made. Now that increases in gas and maintenance prices are accelerating, there are many residents who think the gas lamps are Carbon-Unfriendly, Parish-Council-Budget-Stretching, anachronisms. ``

i couldn't find much on the web, but this tells you they were fairly poor at illumination.. especially in that part of Whitechapel and if Hutch was staring at LA DE DA whilst he was passing under a street lamp, most of his face due to his hat would've been in heavy shadow and his cothing just shades of dark grey...

how clean was the glass in the street lamps? if it's anything like Dorset st, pretty filthy....all sooted up.... a very decrepit area.
found this photo, Whitechapel would've been way darker than this, because here you have additional lighting, look at the people.......look how dark they are

Malcolm X
04-02-2009, 11:47 PM
I'm sure you do, Malcolm.
At the police station, Hutch said the suspect was "pale complexioned".
But when he talked to the press, AM became dark complexioned.

Amitiés,
David
sorry i missed that point, never mind.....yes, whatever his true complexion was only God knows

Jane Coram
04-03-2009, 12:44 AM
Hi,

On the question of how much light the average gas lamp at the time put out.
Neil Bell wrote a great article for Ripperologist 58 (March 2005) in which he examined the lighting in Mitre Square - but the same would apply to almost all gas lamps at the time.

He wrote:

Each lamp shone differently and all such lamps were dependent on various factors such as gas supply, mantle, etc.,......On average, the light given out from the lamps would have been the equivalent of your fridge light - and those were the good lamps.


So basically these lamps were used as beacons to aim for in the darkness, rather than actually lighting the street. How much you would be able to see of someone standing underneath one of them is hard to guess, but it probably wouldn't have been much.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

Malcolm X
04-03-2009, 01:04 AM
thanks Jane

they're actually worst than i thought :scratchchin:

Ben
04-03-2009, 03:39 AM
Thanks for that useful extract from the Ripperologist article, Janie!

Hi Richard,

We don't know how often, if ever, Hutchinson embarked on a long trek from Romford, so there's no reason to infer any weight-related incompatibility between the man who made the statement and the man described by Lewis.

It is to be ridden by a jockey called Hutchinson......
Apt i feel.

Oh, very apt; he'll take you for a ride...!

All the best,
Ben

Convert
04-03-2009, 08:38 AM
Ben, I still maintain what i have said is not that implausible. You seem to be knocking holes in everything I say coming from the point of view that GH was making the whole thing up for one reason or another. As there is so much we do not know about this affair, I do not think the possibilty of GH been an honest witness is easily dismissed.
What we do know as fact is that he, ie GH, came forward and made his statement to police 3 days after the murder. This alone is vitally important in a investigation of this appalling magnitude as it places a witness very close to the time of the murder. So, do we believe him? Firstly, I do not think a common labourer would come forward with an entirely bogus and made up story and give it to police especially under the culture of fear and heightened tension this series of murders created.
So why the delay of 3 days? GH was initially scared of the suspicion he would be under if he came forward with his account which puts him at the time and place of a high profile murder of a victim that he not only knew but also had a relationship with. Time elapses and he decides to come forward because he a) knows he has nothing to fear ie he didn't kill MJK
B) like everyone else he wants the murderer caught
c) if he doesn't give a statement he will miss out on any reward money
So why/how could he give such a detailed description of the stranger.
As I have said before, GH had a desire for MJK and when he sees this stranger with her he takes a much more than casual observation of him. I dont understand why you call this observation paranoid or why you would call GH a stalker for observing a stranger with a girl he has feelings for. I thought it would be perfectly normal for a male to size up another male when it is over a female.
Now I am only concentrating on his, ie GH original statement he gave police. He indicates the couple passed him while against a street lamp. This I believe gives him the opportunity to see clearly what the stranger looked like and what he was wearing. Coupled that GH had an observational interest in this for the reasons above. He then states they went down Dorset Street and he followed. From this we do not know where he was standing when the stranger gave MJK the handkerchief. Nor do I think it is particulary important, if he's telling the truth then he saw it from where he was observing them. And like I have said previously, the handkerchief could have been folded with the tip sticking out of the strangers top coat pocket and GH noted its color when they passed under the street lamp. I dont see anything unusual in this.
However, the description that GH gives us of the stranger is certainly not above been wrong in some instances. To the best of his ability (and memory)he was describing a well dressed male but certainly not anything like an aristocrat etc. His account includes hearing the stranger speak a number of times and GH does not indicate an accent of any type. So an assumption could be that the stranger spoke with a local accent.
When you intimate that
"The more criteria you apply, the fewer the chance of a suspect fitting all of them being captured. If you keep the description vague and encompassing, you're likely to be describing a greater range of suspects, and the chances of a captured individual matching your description is markedly increased."
You have made this statement on the assumption that GH was lying. I do not think he was so I dont think this above statement applies to him.
There is a problem with later press reports of GH accounts getting more elaborate and maybe in some cases contradictory, (depending on values of importance you place on certain inconsistancies). I do not place a great deal of importance of these later press accounts because there is contention of whether they are of a primary, secondary or even tertiary sources of information. And like the press statements throughout this whole ripper affair, they are just too prone to mistakes, falsehoods and outright lies.
So back to the start, we concentrate on the facts and that is GH gave his account to police and this was initially believed by the investigators of the case. The later discreditation of the account by the press and some investigators is due to reasons that belong in another thread and too long to go into here.
This is why I currently believe GH as an important witness. Ben I understand your view that GH was an outright liar and where the reasons for this come from, I have read other threads, very entertaining too. I reckon you put too much faith in the press reports of the time and the attention to detail you place is sometimes pedantic. Not every minor detail of a crime committed is going to put down on paper.
Ben, please do not take this the wrong way and get offended. I am not saying this to belittle you in any way. I appreciate your view on the topic and the points you make are well informed and just as valid. You made this a very interesting discussion. Thank you.

Kindest Regards
Alistair (aka Convert)

Crystal
04-03-2009, 02:26 PM
David writes:

At the police station, Hutch said the suspect was "pale complexioned".
But when he talked to the press, AM became dark complexioned.

Can somebody give me some references for that, please?

Ta!

Jon Guy
04-03-2009, 02:35 PM
At the police station, Hutch said the suspect was "pale complexioned".
But when he talked to the press, AM became dark complexioned.

Can somebody give me some references for that, please?



Hi Crystal

The dark complexion was printed in the Times and The Star on 14th Nov 88

The pale complexion was in his police statement ref MEPO 3/140 ff 227-9

Crystal
04-03-2009, 02:41 PM
Thanks very much, Jon!

Incidentally, and as a general observation, isn't the whole red handkerchief thing just a bit of Jewish stereotyping? It's a bit difficult to tell how much faith we should put in its appearance in Hutchinson's witness statement for that reason, I think.

Sorry if I've missed something - I'm sure that's all been discussed before!

Ben
04-03-2009, 03:13 PM
You seem to be knocking holes in everything I say coming from the point of view that GH was making the whole thing up for one reason or another

I assure you that wasn't my intention, Alistair.

Regarding your observation that a common labourer was unlikely to come forward and invent a bogus story given the atmosphere of terror that pervaded the district. This will hold either true or false depending on his motivation for coming forward. If he was entirely innocent and simply wanted some attention, then yes, I might agree on the grounds that a publicity-seeker (i.e. one who wasn't even there when he claimed to have been) was unlikely to incriminate himself no needlessly without even bothering to give himself an alibi for the time frame encompassing the "Oh murder" period.

The situation changes if Hutchinson felt he needed to come forward with a false description, or that it was heavily in his interests to do so, and such a perceived need could well have arisen from a personal involvement in Kelly's death. Two factors suggest this as a possibile conclusion; firstly, we know that other serial killers have loitered outside their crime scenes (conducting prior surveillance) before attacking, and secondly; he came forward as soon as Sarah Lewis' sighting became had entered into the public arena.

In the above scenario, he wouldn't have been coming forward with a "bogus" account despite the risks, but because of them, acutely aware of the potentially disasterous consequences of resting on his laurels and Sarah Lewis subsequently recognising him as her loitering man from 2:30am, especially if it meant being dragged in as a suspect without having first got his explanation in and nailing his colours pre-emptively to the "I'm cooperative, and I contacted you, remember?" mast.

None of your suggested "delays" for his coming forward satisfactorily explain the coindicence of his coming forward as soon as the inquest details became public knowledge, as far as I'm concerned.

I dont understand why you call this observation paranoid or why you would call GH a stalker for observing a stranger with a girl he has feelings for. I thought it would be perfectly normal for a male to size up another male when it is over a female.

But none of that would bestow upon him the superhuman powers of observation that he would have needed in order to notice and commit to memory all that he alleged in the time and conditions, just as an interest and preoccupation with the solar system doesn't bestow on somebody the power to fly unaided to Saturn. And yes, it would be very unusual for a local labourer enamoured of Kelly to convince himself that the Astrakhan man had dressed up to "impress" Kelly. He need only resign himself to the likelihood that here was a prostitute-client scenario.

He indicates the couple passed him while against a street lamp. This I believe gives him the opportunity to see clearly what the stranger looked like and what he was wearing.

But how long does it take for a man to pass in close proximity to a street lamp - two seconds? That really wasn't enough time to notice, let alone commit to memory, all that he alleged. It just doesn't work, besides which, he claimed to be concentrating on the man's face at the time of the "street lamp" encounter. If you're focussing on the man's face to the extent that you can discern the colour of his eyelashes, you can't be paying equal attention to similarly minor detail from the man's lower body.

See what I mean?

From this we do not know where he was standing when the stranger gave MJK the handkerchief.

But it's implausible from any distance. Place him close the couple in Dorset Street and it becomes unrealistic to accept that they the couple weren't aware that Hutchinson was following them. Place him at the corner of Dorset Street - where the press did - and the distance becomes implausible for noticing colours and hearing conversation. If the man was wearing a waistcoat, dark jacket and Astrakhan overcoat, the pocket of the overcoat was the least likely place to stick a hanky, so yes, it would be unusual.

I try not to be too pedantic over "attention to detail". Somewhat unavoidable, though, when we're dealing with "dark eyelashes" and "horseshoe tie pins"!

All the best,
Ben

DVV
04-03-2009, 03:28 PM
David writes:

At the police station, Hutch said the suspect was "pale complexioned".
But when he talked to the press, AM became dark complexioned.

Can somebody give me some references for that, please?

Ta!

Hello Crystal,
the "pale complexion" is in Hutch's statement, so you'll find it in the Sourcebook, and it's also quoted in Begg, Sugden, etc.
The "dark complexion" is in various press reports related to Hutch, you'll easily find them on Casebook (from 13th to 15th Nov). Sorry for not being more precise, I've little time now and I'm not using my own computer.
But sharp as I know you, I'm sure you'll close this case alone.

Amitiés,
David

Malcolm X
04-03-2009, 05:04 PM
the red handkercief was in his pocket, not hanging out and it was removed at the entrance to Millers court, at that location there is no street lamp overhead, (not in just that photo but in all others too) and none close by either..........HUTCH was standing at the corner of Dorset st.......... it is virtually impossible to see the colour red in near pitch blackness, (or very dark) and at that range..........the handkercief would have appeared black, as would have the clothing too.

gas lamps back then had very poor illumination indeed, it's quite possible that Kelly/LA DE DA; were almost impossible to see from where Hutch was...........it would've looked similar to the 2nd photo, or maybe even darker...........on my estate, as soon as you're 35 ft away from a street lamp you cant see a thing and these lamps are way brighter than the Victorian ones

Convert
04-05-2009, 02:45 AM
Good points Ben and taken on board. Just trying to mull over the implications of what you say, ie then GH could be involved in the murder. It would account for his observations and therefore attempt to try and throw suspicion/blame onto this stranger. Still just trying to wonder if the release of Sarah's report and GH coming forward is actually just a coincedence and nothing more. Coincedence's do happen alot i mean.

Nice pics Malcolm, just wondering how do you know the handkerchief wasnt folded in triangular form with the tip sticking out of the top pocket. As the stranger was described as well dressed this could well have been the case.

Malcolm X
04-05-2009, 05:18 PM
Nice pics Malcolm, just wondering how do you know the handkerchief wasnt folded in triangular form with the tip sticking out of the top pocket. As the stranger was described as well dressed this could well have been the case.

yes this could be true, i'm just guessing it was inside his pocket, even so; it's highly unlikely HUTCH saw this from the end of Dorset st.

in the vacinity of millers court it would've been very dark indeed

Ben
11-29-2013, 12:03 PM
Continued from the "Solved?" thread...

Hi Caz,

Why would he need to 'vindicate' the presence of a red hanky at the murder scene, if nobody could identify it as his own, and they had no reason to even consider the possibility?

I realise I wrote "need", but I should have written "desire".

It is incredibly unlikely, as you seem to acknowledge, that the hanky was of distinctive enough appearance to tie it down to Hutchinson specifically. Unless he had his initials embroidered onto it, that really isn't an option. But if he'd convinced himself, however briefly, that he'd accidentally left it in the room and knew it couldn't have been recognised as his property, there was an obvious incentive in working it in to his fictional account in order to give the Astrakhan episode more validity.

I'd stress again that I don't believe for a moment that he actually did leave his red rag in the room, or that the police ever found one. Had it been otherwise, there would have been little chance of him escaping suspicion, and certainly no chance of the police dismissing him as a mere bogus witness who wasn't there. Moreover, had a handkerchief been located, Abberline would certainly have mentioned it in his post-interrogation report on Hutchinson.

So unless you are suggesting that finding a red hanky would have made all the difference and convinced them that A Man did exist, and had given it to Kelly before murdering her, mentioning it could have been a total disaster for a guilty Hutch.

But a guilty Hutchinson would have considered it a "total disaster" if the police didn't believe his story, hanky or no hanky, unless he'd comforted himself beforehand that if it all goes tits-up, it's okay because the police might just dismiss him as a mere publicity-seeker. Had that been his mentality, it's doubtful that he'd have come forward at all. It is far more likely that he latched onto anything that could be seen to strengthen the credibility of his tall tale, and saw one such opportunity in a red rag he thought he'd left at the scene.

That's not a good reason to mention it though, in connection with A Man, who couldn't have looked more different from Lawende's red-neckerchiefed suspect - while Hutch is meant to have been his identical twin, ie the very same man.

Well, if we're exploring the guilty Hutchinson premise, remember that he had the very difficult task of reconciling his own fictional Jack the Ripper description with previously published police-endorsed descriptions of the shabbily dressed, essentially nondescript actual ripper, i.e. him. Even if people did buy into Astrakhan, they would still note the disparity between the flashily, expensively dressed presumed ripper and the shabby bloke seen with Eddowes not ten minutes before her body was discovered. By establishing some form of common ground, he was enabling certain false inferences to be made, i.e. that Eddowes' killer was not the shabby local he seemed to be, but rather a wealthy sinister Jew who dressed down for the occasion, and even used his posh red hanky as a neckerchief in order to "blend in".

All the best,
Ben

Wickerman
11-29-2013, 06:16 PM
Well, if we're exploring the guilty Hutchinson premise, remember that he had the very difficult task of reconciling his own fictional Jack the Ripper description .....

He never claimed he saw Jack the Ripper - this is your conjecture.

In fact he claimed quite the opposite, that the man he saw didn't look like a killer.
Lets not forget, by 6:00 pm on the 12th Kelly's time of death had not been published, all Hutchinson could lay claim to is seeing an earlier client.

Ben
11-29-2013, 08:05 PM
He never claimed he saw Jack the Ripper - this is your conjecture.

I know it is, but I've acknowledged as much.

You even quoted the post that made this very clear:

"Well, if we're exploring the guilty Hutchinson premise" - is what I said.

If Hutchinson was himself responsible for the crime, his likely intention was to convince people that Astrakhan man - with his tightly-grasped, knife-shaped, knife-sized parcel - was the killer. Obviously he was compelled to claim otherwise, lest anyone quiz him over his failure to alert a policeman or sound the alarm when he saw him enter Miller's Court with Kelly.

Wickerman
11-30-2013, 07:52 AM
If Hutchinson was himself responsible for the crime, his likely intention was to convince people that Astrakhan man - with his tightly-grasped, knife-shaped, knife-sized parcel - was the killer.

Wow, we do have quite the imagination today...

"He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it."
Police statement.

"He carried a small parcel in his hand about 8in. long, and it had a strap round it."
Press statement.

Please educate the rest of us as to the shape of the parcel (width and depth, flat or round?), and how anyone can deduce the contents.

Ben
11-30-2013, 08:39 AM
Wow, we do have quite the imagination today...

Whereas you seem to have none at all...

Pay attention to what I'm posting or don't respond, please.

I'm not trying to "deduce the contents". I'm quite sure that a non-existent parcel belonging to a non-existent individual contained nothing, but what we're doing here is exploring what Hutchinson might have wanted people to think if he himself was the killer, i.e. that the "surly looking" Astrakhan man was the killer and that his "eight inch long" parcel which he "tightly grasped" contained a knife.

Wickerman
11-30-2013, 10:40 AM
Whereas you seem to have none at all...

Pay attention to what I'm posting or don't respond, please.

I'm not trying to "deduce the contents". I'm quite sure that a non-existent parcel belonging to a non-existent individual contained nothing, but what we're doing here is exploring what Hutchinson might have wanted people to think if he himself was the killer, i.e. that the "surly looking" Astrakhan man was the killer and that his "eight inch long" parcel which he "tightly grasped" contained a knife.

Odd really, considering you have tried to push the scenario that Hutchinson 'invented' A-man inspired by earlier press descriptions involving, among other things, the proverbial 'bag'.
Yet here you pursue the idea that he tried to imply an 8" parcel carried a knife, this without describing the shape be it round like a roll, or flat like a book.

What happened to 'the bag'? - surely this would have been more convincing.

What I was pointing out was that Hutchinson can hardly be expected to be trying to implicate A-man in the murder by making reference to a non-descript package.

Anyhow, verbal tennis aside, I see you appear to be enjoying your time in our fine country, is this your first visit?

Michael W Richards
11-30-2013, 10:51 AM
THE most plausible explanation for George Hutchinsons statement is between the lines....not 3, but 4 whole days before coming forward, only doing so after all the courtyard witnesses had been at the Inquest and it was over, and the story that was circulating about the witness who saw the wideawake hat man loitering and watching...he came forward only because he learned that he had been seen there by Sarah Lewis.

Whether he made up why he was there is up to you, or whether parts or the entirety of his story were concocted as well. But it seems that the most logical answer to his statement on Monday night was in some respects self preservation.

Cheers

Ben
11-30-2013, 11:04 AM
The very simple premise I'm "pushing" here, Jon, is that Hutchinson may have invented Astrakhan man in an effort to deflect suspicion away from himself, and used various bits and bobs from some of the earlier descriptions involving sinister Jews and men with black bags in the process. Your latest objection to this seems to that if he wanted to invent Astrakhan and encourage people to believe he was the killer, he'd have been more blatant about it. I suspect, however, that Hutchinson had good reasons for going for a slightly more subtle sell.

I'd submit that in describing the black bag as being eight inches long and "tightly grasped", he was trying to encourage the inference that it contained a knife. If he went overboard and made it seem even more obviously "knifey", it would have have undermined his claim to have harboured no suspicion that the man was the murderer, which was crucial for explaining away his failure to sound the alarm (as opposed to waiting on the other side of the road, utterly useless as a preventative measure against a fatal attack on Kelly by Astrakhan).

Anyhow, verbal tennis aside, I see you appear to be enjoying your time in our fine country, is this your first visit?

It is, Jon, and I had a wonderful time in your fine country. I got back Thursday morning with many happy memories of places visited and acquaintances met. Despite it being primarily a work trip, I hope I got to see as many of the historical sites as I could. There's a chance I could be back in June, which I'm already very exited about.

All the best,
Ben

c.d.
11-30-2013, 11:04 AM
Hello Michael,

I never thought I would ever say this but I agree with you.

c.d.

Ben
11-30-2013, 11:06 AM
Seconded, Mike!

Good post.

Wickerman
11-30-2013, 11:37 AM
THE most plausible explanation for George Hutchinsons statement is between the lines....not 3, but 4 whole days before coming forward, only doing so after all the courtyard witnesses had been at the Inquest and it was over, and the story that was circulating about the witness who saw the wideawake hat man loitering and watching...he came forward only because he learned that he had been seen there by Sarah Lewis.

Hi Michael.
Between the termination of the Inquest (at what time?), and Hutchinson's appearance at Commercial St. station (at 6:00pm), what indication do you have that anyone on the street knew what Sarah Lewis saw?

Nothing of her claim was published in the press prior to the Inquest, and of the four main evening papers that we have (Evening News, Star, Echo, Pall Mall Gaz.), only the Echo carried the testimony of Sarah Lewis but as we do not know what time this late edition came out then we cannot connect the two incidents.

Wickerman
11-30-2013, 11:54 AM
The very simple premise I'm "pushing" here, Jon, is that Hutchinson may have invented Astrakhan man in an effort to deflect suspicion away from himself, and used various bits and bobs from some of the earlier descriptions involving sinister Jews and men with black bags in the process. Your latest objection to this seems to that if he wanted to invent Astrakhan and encourage people to believe he was the killer, he'd have been more blatant about it. I suspect, however, that Hutchinson had good reasons for going for a slightly more subtle sell.

Are you able to explain why a man in such a position as Hutchinson would not simply use the already published description of the Eddowes suspect, assuming he wished to elude the police. To make it believable should be his prime concern, wouldn't you think - assuming he made it up.


It is, Jon, and I had a wonderful time in your fine country. I got back Thursday morning with many happy memories of places visited and acquaintances met. Despite it being primarily a work trip, I hope I got to see as many of the historical sites as I could. There's a chance I could be back in June, which I'm already very exited about.


Ah, you're back home already, sorry. You seem to have spent some time traveling. I hope the weather was kind to you, from accounts you either hit or narrowly missed some extremely bad weather. Historical sites?, are you interested in the war of 1812, or did you mean older?
They hold re-enactments in summer at various places, Fort Erie (Erie), Fort York (Toronto), Fort Henry (Kingston).

Ben
11-30-2013, 11:58 AM
He wouldn't have needed to read Lewis' account in the press, Jon.

He need only have registered the fact that Lewis was one of the witnesses due to appear at the inquest, which would have required, at the very most, joining the crowds thronging outside Shoreditch Town Hall. Alternatively, he may have read the "Mrs. Kennedy"'s account in the press and discovered from the Star's report that she was parrotting the evidence of a genuine witness, Sarah Lewis, who probably delivered her genuine her account to the inquest. Either way, rumour travelled like wildfire on those streets, so you can be assured that anything spoken at the public inquest because public knowledge very quickly indeed!

Ben
11-30-2013, 12:12 PM
Hi Jon,

Are you able to explain why a man in such a position as Hutchinson would not simply use the already published description of the Eddowes suspect, assuming he wished to elude the police

Because it would have defeated the purpose of deflecting suspicion away from himself. If Hutchinson was the killer, he was the man with the neckerchief seen by Lawende, so it wouldn't have made much sense to deflect suspicion away from himself and onto...himself! Also, remember that the man's extraordinary appearance was Hutchinson's self-confessed reason for taking such an interest in Astrakhan and loitering on Dorset Street for a long as he claimed.

Were Hutchinson to have removed the man's extraordinary appearance from the equation, that reason for the interest/loitering is rendered invalid.

I hope the weather was kind to you

The weather was great on the whole, thanks! We arrived into a snowy Ottawa on Remembrance Sunday, but that quickly gave way to sunshine and blue skies, which continued for our week in Halifax. It was beginning to get colder by the time we got to Montreal, but I gather we narrowly missed the worst of the snow and the minus 12 temperatures!

I'm very big on by maritime history, and visited many of the Titanic passenger connections in the three cities I stayed in. Charles Melville Hays, for instance, built the Ottawa Hotel, had his body brought back from the sea to Halifax, where his gloves are on display at the Maritime Museum, and he lived and was buried in Mount Royal Cemetery, Montreal. So I sort of followed him around!

But I'll definitely check out some of those re-enactments if I ever get back.

All the best,
Ben

Wickerman
11-30-2013, 12:44 PM
Hi Jon,
Because it would have defeated the purpose of deflecting suspicion away from himself. If Hutchinson was the killer, he was the man with the neckerchief seen by Lawende, .....


So why would 'the Lawende suspect' just walse straight in to Comm. St. station pretending to be someone else?
I think your scenario is a little contradictory - you say he did not describe the Lawende suspect because that was 'him', yet he thought nothing about walking straight into a police station looking like the Lawende suspect, but attempting to implicate someone else?

So did he walk into Comm. Street disguised?, if so then we are back to the original question, why not describe the Lawende suspect because, in his present disguise, he looks nothing like that.
Do you see the contradictory nature of the argument?

The description offered by Sarah Lewis didn't appear to reflect the Lawende suspect, so what did he have to worry about?


I'm very big on by maritime history, and visited many of the Titanic passenger connections in the three cities I stayed in....

Every summer The Tall Ships arrive in Lake Ontario, I don't know what the 2014 schedule is yet, but they came in June this year.
https://www.tallshipsbrockville.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/home_events.jpg
http://www.tallshipsbrockville.com/
http://www.mynewwaterfronthome.com/tallships1812.aspx
http://www.rcyc.ca/Doc-Types/Sailing-News-%281%29/TALL-SHIPS-are-Coming!-Great-Lakes,-June-14-Septem.aspx

Ben
11-30-2013, 01:06 PM
I think your scenario is a little contradictory - you say he did not describe the Lawende suspect because that was 'him', yet he thought nothing about walking straight into a police station looking like the Lawende suspect

Lawende's suspect was a ostensibly a working class, ordinarily-dressed man. There were tens of thousands of people dressed like that in the east end at that time, and it was only the red neckerchief that could remotely be construed as a stand-out feature. There was only a danger if the men who saw him in that potentially compromising situation outside Mitre Square recognised him again, which was only likely to happen if Hutchinson was identified on the streets by Lewis, grilled as a suspect (as he inevitably would have been in that scenario) and subsequently paraded before other witnesses, including Lawende.

It was to the end out preventing that potential outcome that I suggest his proactive efforts in contacting the police voluntarily were directed; his intention being to provide an innocent reason for the loitering behaviour of the wideawake man (himself) before that wideawake man becomes a suspect. But he didn't just legitimise his presence as seen by Lewis - he provided a false lead in the form of an opulently dressed Jewish "suspect" whose appearance was the very antithesis of his own "labouring class" dress that had been on display at earlier crimes. It took the heat off the local gentile (as suggested by Lawende's description) and placed in firmly in the direction of the sinister, well-dressed Jew.

Every summer The Tall Ships arrive in Lake Ontario, I don't know what the 2014 schedule is yet, but they came in June this year.

Many thanks for this info, Jon. And that's great news, considering I might be back in June!

All the best,
Ben

Wickerman
11-30-2013, 02:42 PM
... But he didn't just legitimise his presence as seen by Lewis - he provided a false lead in the form of an opulently dressed Jewish "suspect" whose appearance was the very antithesis of his own "labouring class" dress that had been on display at earlier crimes.

Though your suggested 'false lead' doesn't appear to be all that false when Sarah Lewis admitted to seeing the same couple walk up the passage while this loiterer was standing looking up this same passage.

"He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
Daily News, 13 Nov. 1888

Although this quote has always been the proverbial 'spanner in the works' for your theory, it does at least confirm a significant part of Hutchinson's claim.
Quite understandably you prefer to dismiss it for the same reason. Yet, all the contemporary press versions of her statement tell a remarkably consistent story.
If the Daily News version was in error we would expect something contradictory, as it happens the Daily News version merely provides more detail than the rest, which is to our benefit in piecing this sequence of events together.

Ben
11-30-2013, 03:33 PM
Hi Jon,

Also, I'm a big fan of Canadian beer now. Tankhouse is something very special. ;)

Though your suggested 'false lead' doesn't appear to be all that false when Sarah Lewis admitted to seeing the same couple walk up the passage while this loiterer was standing looking up this same passage.

Please, please not this again!

Surely we've sorted this one out by now? This article is 100% false. Not deliberately so, admittedly; it was a simple reporting error made by no other newspaper, but no less false for that. As such, it's essential that we recognise it for what it is, rather than claiming that every other press source and Lewis's statement must be wrong in order for the Daily News to be right.

Sarah Lewis did not see anyone enter Miller's Court (and yes, Miller's Court refers to any point in the Court from the Dorset Street arch entrance northwards, including the passage); that much is made abundantly clear by every other source that provides Lewis' testimony, with the sole and sorry exception of the Daily News.

Nobody "passed up the court", according to Lewis

Nobody entered the court, according to Lewis.

She saw a couple "pass along" Dorset Street, not along Miller's Court. Had there been the remotest whiff of a consideration that the female half of this couple was Kelly, Lewis would have been asked to attend the mortuary to attempt an identification. But that didn't happen, and no interest was shown in this couple, for understandable reasons.

Sorry, Jon, but I really thought we'd got to grips with this one by now.

And it cannot possibly be the "same couple" as Kelly and Astrakhan - that is, if you accept Hutchinson's account. By the time Hutchinson allegedly installed himself opposite the court, Kelly and Astrakhan were already inside, i.e. not "passing up the court" when wideawake/Hutchinson was already plonked on Dorset Street.

In other words, even if the Daily News wasn't provably wrong, which it indisputably is, there is no question of any corroboration for the existence of Astrakhan.

All the best,
Ben

Wickerman
11-30-2013, 04:48 PM
Hi Jon,

Also, I'm a big fan of Canadian beer now. Tankhouse is something very special. ;)

Hi Ben.
Funny, I never warmed to Canadian beers. I still love a Guinness on special occasions, but when I go out I just order a draft of whatever they have on tap.
Never tried Tankhouse though.



Please, please not this again!

Surely we've sorted this one out by now? This article is 100% false.

Well, the thing is Ben, we can label an article any way we choose, but the measure of the worth of an article is to compare it with what we know from other articles, or police files.
All opinions aside, this article measures up well when compared to its contemporaries, and is not contradicted by anything we know, but is in fact confirmed by Hutchinson.


... Had there been the remotest whiff of a consideration that the female half of this couple was Kelly, Lewis would have been asked to attend the mortuary to attempt an identification.

It wouldn't have served any purpose as Lewis did not know Mary Kelly like Hutchinson, and her vantage point was likely from the rear, much like Lawende's view of Eddowes, and he was not called to identify her either.

Hutchinson does not make it clear on which side of the road (Dorset St.) he stood at any given time. He did claim to go up the court at one point so we know he was on the north side however briefly, but whether his vigil was spent entirely opposite the passage on the south side of the street, or briefly on both sides, is unknown to us today.

The important issue is that Sarah Lewis confirms the activities of this couple being watched by the loiterer (Hutchinson).

Ben
11-30-2013, 06:25 PM
Hi Jon,

Tankhouse is great. Strong and dark like a porter. And I like your "Beer Stores" that you have out there. For the fellow Brits among us, they're like Argos but for beer!

Well, the thing is Ben, we can label an article any way we choose, but the measure of the worth of an article is to compare it with what we know from other articles, or police files.

Yes indeed, which is why it's so essential to discard the Daily News report, who had so obviously made an error when reporting on Lewis' evidence. It is contradicted by all other press reports of Lewis' account, as well as her police statement. Everything "we know", basically. Sarah Lewis stated that there was nobody in the court (i.e. she saw nobody enter it), and that a young couple "passed along" Dorset Street. She also stated clearly that the couple in question were "further on" from where wideawake man stood, near Crossinghams in Dorset Street, establishing for certain that the couple in question were also in Dorset Street and not in Miller's Court.

We're in agreement that the widewake man was probably Hutchinson, but if you're looking to Lewis in the hope of uncovering any support for Hutchinson's other claims, like the existence of discredited Astrakhan man, it's essential that you pulp the Daily News first. They provided a provably faulty and false report of Lewis' evidence, which needs to be rejected.

The important issue is that Sarah Lewis confirms the activities of this couple being watched by the loiterer

No.

Emphatically no way.

If you want to endorse Hutchinson's account as accurate, you must pay attention to what he actually says, which was that he didn't move from his alleged spot at the corner of Commercial Street and Dorset Street until after Kelly and Astrakhan disappeared up the court. Utterly inconsistent with the irrefutably wrong Daily News report.

All the best,
Ben

Wickerman
12-01-2013, 07:49 AM
For the fellow Brits among us, they're like Argos but for beer!

Hi Ben.
Ah, yes a department store for beer (for the Can/US drinker, a UK Argos is like a Walmart). So you don't have anything similar in the UK yet?
I read that my brothers-in-law in Wigan often talk about getting a few cans for the weekend, but I've never thought to ask 'from where'?, I just assumed it would be a beer store.



Yes indeed, which is why it's so essential to discard the Daily News report,...

The benefit of the Daily News version is that it provides more specific detail.

Not only that this couple can be placed actually walking up the passage, which is confirmed by Hutchinson, but that the loiterer also stood at Kelly's door. This is also another detail not mentioned in the other press versions, but, importantly, is also confirmed by Hutchinson.

Only Hutchinson & The Daily News are able to tell us these two consistent details. The other press versions do not go so far.

It simply makes no sense whatsoever to discard the only press version that actually agrees in detail with the story provided by Hutchinson.
And also, nothing in the D.N. version contradicts any of the other dozen or so press versions.


If you want to endorse Hutchinson's account as accurate, you must pay attention to what he actually says,...

Exactly Ben, so when we locate a press version that describes a man & woman passing up the court, the woman being drunk, and, that the loiterer actually came and stood by Kelly's room, then we must credit that press version with being both consistent and accurate.
Afterall, these two important details are only otherwise provided by Hutchinson.
Only the Daily News withstands the litmus test.


.....which was that he didn't move from his alleged spot at the corner of Commercial Street and Dorset Street until after Kelly and Astrakhan disappeared up the court. Utterly inconsistent with the irrefutably wrong Daily News report.


You may notice a discrepancy between the police version & the press version of Hutchinsons story.
Only in the press do we read that he stood at the corner of Dorset St., but not in the police version.

So here we get back to the sighting of the red handkerchief.

In the police version he made no mention of stopping at the corner of Dorset St., but he followed them...

"..They both went into Dorset Street I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes."

Later, he writes that he crossed Dorset St. to stand at the entrance to the court...

"...They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."

So your earlier problem of questioning how come Hutchinson could see the colour of the handkerchief & hear the conversation is negated by ignoring the inaccurate press version and staying with what he told the police.
Standing opposite Millers Court on the south side of Dorset St. he would be well able to both see and hear what he described.

Follow the police version Ben, not the press version. When the couple went down Dorset St. Hutchinson followed them. When they went up the court, Hutchinson crossed over to the court and waited.
He makes no mention of standing and waiting on the corner of Dorset & Commercial St.

Ben
12-01-2013, 09:27 AM
Hi Jon,

So you don't have anything similar in the UK yet?

I wish!

No, it tends to be off-licenses and the booze section of supermarkets here, which is probably where your brothers-in-law get theirs. Off-licenses are full of bottles of wines, beers and spirits, that you pick up and bring to the counter yourself, unlike the beer store where you point at the descriptions on the wall and the staff retrieve it for you!

The benefit of the Daily News version is that it provides more specific detail.

The Daily News didn't provide "more specific" detail. They provided hopelessly false details that were contradicted by all other press sources and, more importantly, Lewis' actual police statement.

The location of the wideawake-wearing loitering man is simply not open to discussion because she provided it unambiguously, and with no room for doubt, in her signed police statement which read as follows:

"When I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street"

"Against the lodging house"

"On the opposite side in Dorset Street" i.e. the opposite side from where she was, which was the entrance to Miller's Court.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Lewis saw her man standing against Crossingham's lodging house on the opposite side of Dorset Street to Miller's Court. She clearly meant "opposite side" in the sense that the vast majority of people understand the phrase, i.e. on the other/contrary side to where she was standing at the time of the sighting, i.e. as she was "came up the court".

It is an unarguable certainty, therefore, that "opposite" for Sarah Lewis did not mean "in front of" or "adjacent to".

So certain are we of the loiterer's location - thanks to her police statement - that the necessity to conduct any press report comparisons is completely nullified. The only positive and productive outcome of conducting such an exercise would be to establish which newspapers were talking utter nonsense. In other words, any newspaper which had the loitering man in an appreciably different location to that provided in her police statement. To the dustbin, then, must be consigned the silly press claim that the wideawake man was standing in the "doorway of the deceased's house". This is absolutely 100% an example of misreporting.

So is the Daily News' provably false claim that she saw a couple "pass up the court".

It doesn't matter if you think either of these claims would work well with Hutchinson's account (they don't, but that's another story). It's just tough, I'm afraid, since the claims are unquestionably in error, and thus lend no weight whatsoever to Hutchinson's discredited account. According to Lewis' genuine account, the only couple she saw remained firmly on Dorset Street, "further on" from where wideawake man stood, and certainly didn't enter the court. Indeed, she makes it very clear indeed that there was "nobody in the court", thus demolishing the Daily News' cloth-earned misinterpretation of the inquest evidence.

So your earlier problem of questioning how come Hutchinson could see the colour of the handkerchief & hear the conversation is negated by ignoring the inaccurate press version and staying with what he told the police.

But this press claim appeared in the vast majority of papers that gave Hutchinson's account, whereas the "the inaccurate press version" of Lewis' evidence that you inexplicably champion appeared in just one - the Daily silly News. Unless you accept the press version which has Hutchinson watching the couple from the corner of Dorset Street before they entered the Court, you're left with the faintly ludicrous scenario of Hutchinson sticking to the couple like a limpet all the way from Fashion Street to the Miller's Court entrance without either Astrakhan or Kelly battling an eyelid.

Follow the police version Ben, not the press version.

That's what you ought to be doing with regard to Lewis, as opposed to sticking with a single false press account that was proved utterly wrong by all other sources.

All the best,
Ben

Wickerman
12-01-2013, 02:36 PM
Hi Ben.
When I was over in the UK last my brother-in-law told me that if anyone parks crooked in a parking spot, maybe the car wheels are on or over the white dividing line between the cars, the offending car can be ticketed for sloppy parking.
Is this a national thing or I wonder if it was local to Wigan.
We desperately need to adopt that idea here, good grief, some will park their cars on the diagonal taking up two spaces just so no-one can park next to them.


The location of the wideawake-wearing loitering man is simply not open to discussion because she provided it unambiguously, and with no room for doubt, in her signed police statement which read as follows:

"When I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street"

"Against the lodging house"

"On the opposite side in Dorset Street" i.e. the opposite side from where she was, which was the entrance to Miller's Court.

I don't disagree Ben, initially this is where Hutchinson positioned himself while the couple were standing at the entrance to Millers Court, not 30? feet away across the narrow street.
So he was well able to discern colours and hear the womans voice if not the mans. But apparently he was only there about 3 minutes, then he crossed the street.
Hutchinson was not observing the red handkerchief from the corner of Dorset & Commercial St., but from his position opposite Millers Court.

Hutchinson tells us:
"...I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."

So, as the couple walked up the passage, the loiterer - Hutchinson, crossed the street and, apparently followed them up the passage. This is confirmed in the press version where we read:

"...I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

Seeing & hearing nothing in the court, he then returned to the street and took up his vigil at the entrance to Millers court.

In the press we read:

"...After I left the court I walked about all night,..." and, "...When I left the corner of Miller's-court the clock struck three o'clock."

So first we have him on the south side for a brief spell, then he crossed to the north side, and followed the couple up the court, then returned to the entrance, and stood around till about 3:00.
Indisputably then, Hutchinson spent the majority of time on the north side of Dorset St. outside the entrance of the passage.

So when you ask...

So is the Daily News' provably false claim that she saw a couple "pass up the court".

You have just learned the answer to your own query.

So where did the couple go?
You correctly observe the couple were not up to any hanky-panky in the darkness of the court...

Indeed, she makes it very clear indeed that there was "nobody in the court"...

This is also confirmed by Hutchinson when he followed the couple up the court, he saw no-one in the court.
Lewis & Hutchinson confirm each other on several points.

richardnunweek
12-01-2013, 04:05 PM
Hi,
I think its a fair possibility that our George was hanging around for the man to leave, not for any assault on the guy, but to call on Mary to seek refuge until his lodgings opened at 6,am
This may, or may not, have been known to Mary.
I have always found it strange that Kelly, with a room to sleep in, was actually walking the streets at 2,am, this surely would have placed herself in extreme danger, if not from the killer himself[ which she was well aware of],also from the dossers on the street well after the pubs closed.surely if she was after clients , to wait outside the public houses at a earlier time would have been more beneficial.
The whole episode , either did not happen , in which case it was fabricated by Hutchinson, for reasons known to himself. or the meeting with Mr A, was a planned encounter , and was acted out to whoever saw it , to give the impression that she had been accosted by a sinister stranger.
This would of course lead us to the possibility that the body on the bed was not that of Mary Kelly, and she had been accessory to a brutal murder,
The man Hutchinson describes is something straight out of 'The penny dreadful', and is surely unrealistic to suggest. that a woman who was well aware of the presence of the Ripper in the area,who the day previous had remarked to Mrs McCarthy''He is a concern isn't he''? would take such a man back to her room in the middle of the night..
It does not ring true..unless she knew the man, and planned the encounter..
Of course she may have been tricked into trusting , and paid the ultimate price.
Regards Richard.

Ben
12-01-2013, 05:51 PM
Hi Jon,

Is this a national thing or I wonder if it was local to Wigan.

My dad was born there, so I'll have to ask him! Generally speaking, however, and judging from the parking "quality" I've witnessed, I think penalties for crooked kerb-clippers would be an excellent idea on both sides of the pond. :)

I don't disagree Ben, initially this is where Hutchinson positioned himself while the couple were standing at the entrance to Millers Court, not 30? feet away across the narrow street.

Nowhere near that.

More like 10 feet, rendering it unthinkable that Astrakhan and Kelly allowed Hutchinson to follow them all the way from the corner of Fashion Street to the Miller's Court entrance without noticing him and raising serious objections to his behaviour. In addition to which, there is nothing in the police statement to indicate he took a single step into Dorset Street until after the pair entered the court, whereas nearly every press version has him waiting at the corner of Dorset Street until after they disappeared, and only then entering the street itself and making for Miller's Court.

This is confirmed in the press version where we read...

Woah there, either you're listening to the main press versions of Hutchinson's statement or you're rejecting them. It's all a bit picky-choosy at the moment. The police statement mentioned nothing about him entering the court itself, and you'll note from the comments of various witnesses that there was a clear distinction between "to the court" and "up the court". The former was an encompassing term that could have referred to anywhere in front of the Miller's Court entrance on Dorset Street. The width of Dorset Street was so negligible than any distinction between the "northern" and "southern" sides is rendered meaningless. Hutchinson could hovered anywhere in the general area in front of Miller's Court, and it would still have qualified as "to the court".

If there's any truth at all to his claim that he entered the court itself and waited outside Kelly's room, the likelihood is that this was the last thing he did before allegedly departing the scene. Leaving the area from the corner of Miller's Court would make sense if he'd only just aborted his "couple of minutes" vigil outside her room.

The only location we can pinpoint him to, with a reasonable degree of certainly, is outside the lodging house, opposite the court, where Lewis saw the wideawake man (probably Hutchinson). This is consistent with Hutchinson's account, it establishes his probable whereabouts at that time, and is the only point of corroboration with Lewis' account.

All the best,
Ben

richardnunweek
12-02-2013, 02:56 AM
Hi,
It surely would have been easy for the police to establish if Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw, all they had to do was to ask him 'what hat he was wearing that night'.
If he said ''A wide-awake'' then bingo, they knew that his whereabouts were likely to be accurate.
Its that simple, to determine that at least part of his statement was true.
As for the wrong day theory, as portrayed by Fisherman, if Lewis say a man fitting Hutchinson's description in the early hours of the 9TH , and details of the hat were established,it is unlikely to be the morning of the 8th.
I would suggest that if George was loitering opposite Millers court, then he was obviously waiting either for curiosity [ as he stated], or waiting to see if the man left so he could possibly gain a shelter till daybreak[ something he could hardly admit publicly , but possibly did so to the police].
I personally see George Hutchinson as a person down on his luck, observing a encounter by chance,being curious, and fighting with his fear of coming forward into the investigation, until Monday evening.
Unfortunately because of the delay. he is still being suspected of dark deeds to the very day.
Regards Richard.

Sally
12-02-2013, 06:19 AM
Hi Richard,

I would suggest that if George was loitering opposite Millers court, then he was obviously waiting either for curiosity [ as he stated], or waiting to see if the man left so he could possibly gain a shelter till daybreak[ something he could hardly admit publicly , but possibly did so to the police].
I personally see George Hutchinson as a person down on his luck, observing a encounter by chance,being curious, and fighting with his fear of coming forward into the investigation, until Monday evening.
Unfortunately because of the delay. he is still being suspected of dark deeds to the very day.
Regards Richard.

Hutchinson is still suspected of 'dark deeds' today because of the ambiguity surrounding his actions; and the elements of his account which are viewed as implausible by many. For so long as that remains true, he'll remain under suspicion in general terms.

I agree – Hutchinson could have been waiting for curiosity; waiting to see if he could cadge a bed for the night; or a number of other innocuous reasons that we can think of.

However, that said, I don’t see any compelling reason to suggest that he couldn’t have been the murderer, either.

I think that we have to work with the known facts here; and what they tell us is that he loitered in close proximity to a murder scene; waited several days to come forward with his information; and only did so once it another witness reported seeing a man loitering on the night of the murder.

However suggestive (or not, as I’m aware some would argue) those facts are; since the facts don’t tell us the answer to the question of what he was doing that night, the question still remains.

I think that it still remains whether one subscribes to the idea that the witness Hutchinson was ‘Toppy’, or not. Let’s suppose that this is the case for a minute – why must his reason for having been on Dorset Street that night be innocent? Why couldn’t Toppy be a killer? Is there anything that militates against the possibility?

I think that it’s a lot easier to decide that Hutchinson was not guilty of anything if we think we know him; but isn’t that misleading? How many superficially innocuous, ‘ordinary’ killers have there been to date? Come to that, how many murder victims are killed by somebody they know?

Any kind of security that we might feel with the ‘known’ should be treated with caution in my view; unless there is a very good reason not to do so.

The fact remains that Hutchinson loitered, by his own admission, in close proximity to a murder scene. Now, of course he may have been telling the truth to some extent – or even (though I don’t personally believe so for an instant) entirely. Astrakhan Man may have really existed (even if he wasn’t ‘Joseph Isaacs’). Although if we wish take his account at face value I think we have some serious questions to address (often glossed over in these discussions) first.

On the other hand, he could have been the killer – or at the very least have known more about Kelly’s murder than he let on – and it could be, as has been suggested by others, that the only reason that he came forward when he did was because he wanted to exonerate himself in the light of Sarah Lewis’ testimony. In short, I see no reason to suppose – Toppy or not – that Hutchinson could not have been Kelly’s killer, as has often been argued here. Whether or not we choose to see that event as a one off ‘domestic’ or one of a series makes little difference in that regard, I think.

I’m not saying that I think he was the killer (before the bullets start flying) - I see no mileage in pinning my colours to any particular mast in the absence of conclusive evidence - but I have to say that I see nothing that argues convincingly against the possibility either.

richardnunweek
12-02-2013, 10:08 AM
Hello Sally.
First of all , we should look upon who George Hutchinson was.
I have said many times[ as Ben will vouch] that I believe he was 22 year old Topping, in order for him not to have been , we would have to disbelieve the entire Hutchinson family, both his sons maintained that their father knew one of the victims , and remembered the tale told by Topping.
In order for Topping to have lied , and transform himself into someone involved in the case, he would have had to have been familiar with that person, and familiarize himself with the little known 'payment' allegedly given to the witness.
I have suggested many times, that regardless of the integrity of the said publication which referred to the payment, it happens to have been, the only printed form that mentioned it.
So are we suggesting that young Topping unemployed groom, actually either read that article , or remembered local 1888 gossip, knowing that it could be useful for future bragging in public houses for many years to come.?
Not only that , but while he was at it, research the actual statement made by the man he was impersonating to acquaint himself as it would be useful.
The very fact being, the mention of a payment was disclosed on radio in the mid 1970's, and the exact full tale was quoted in 'The Ripper and the Royals' in 1992.
Reg Hutchinson ..oldest son of Topping,was Fairclough's informant , so as the 1970's broadcast included an alleged interview with the son of the witness Hutchinson, and .. relayed exactly what was in the book some 18 years later, one can come to the conclusion it came from one of the two sons, on audio tape.
Back to your suggestion..
But Topping could still have been a killer?
Surely it depends on who one interprets as being Hutchinson the witness.
What it all boils down to is. only one person ever admitted to having been him that being George William Topping Hutchinson, and whats more he knew of the payment, which would suggest it no one else but him.
I apologize for the lengthy post , but I really want to bring it home , and give Casebook an insight why I am so adamant about the witness being Topping .
Regards Richard.

Sam Flynn
12-02-2013, 12:28 PM
you'll note from the comments of various witnesses that there was a clear distinction between "to the court" and "up the court"... Hutchinson could hovered anywhere in the general area in front of Miller's Court, and it would still have qualified as "to the court".
I wouldn't have thought so, Ben. "The" Court was surely the [Court]yard itself, or at the very least the narrow, arched entrance to it. Anything else in the immediate vicinity was, well, Dorset Street (with an option on #26 or #27), McCarthy's shop or - on 'tother side of the road - the Lodging House.The width of Dorset Street was so negligible than any distinction between the "northern" and "southern" sides is rendered meaningless. The fact that Sarah Lewis described Wideawake Man as located opposite the Court would seem to contradict this notion.

Michael W Richards
12-02-2013, 02:37 PM
It seems that at least some people agreed with my statement that the impetus for George Hutchinson to come forward was self preservation, then it stands to reason the story he would provide would include a reasonable explanation for his watching the court that night. His story does seem to suggest that he was there because he had some concern for Marys welfare.

Lets look at that premise. He waits until after the formal hearing of evidence in the murder of Mary is over before coming forward. He tells no-one what he has seen for 4 days. Not one of Marys courtyard neighbors mentions a friend of hers named George. He stated that Mary sought some money from him and he unfortunately couldnt provide her with any. What did Mary need money for that night? Her bed wasnt paid for each night, it was paid weekly, and she was already in arrears that her landlord said were collected "as best they could be". She arrived home staggering drunk, she could barely speak to her courtyard neighbor Ms Cox, and she had eaten,... evidence for that is in the autopsy. She had no need of money that night.

He states Mary was out of her room after 11:45pm, yet no-one else sees Mary Kelly out of her room after 11:45am. Unless you count the morning sightings as accurate, which the contemporary investigators, and myself, do not. In his statement he describes in specific detail a man he saw across the dim lit street, after midnight,...details which would be nearly impossible to discern with the light available.

What puzzles me is why he would go to such incredible detail if his intention was just to exonerate himself?

It seems to me that its possible that the detail was there for Abberline...to describe someone who would be a known criminal to Abberline. To get Abberlines support. To that end it is worth noting again that his description of the man matches quite well the known characteristics of Frank Millen. Someone Abberline would know of, due to his tireless investigations into the Irish Self Rule activities in London during those years.

Thing is, Millen supposedly wasnt in town at that time,....but would George know that? Would Abberline?

Cheers

Wickerman
12-02-2013, 06:02 PM
Nowhere near that.

More like 10 feet, rendering it unthinkable that Astrakhan and Kelly allowed Hutchinson to follow them all the way from the corner of Fashion Street to the Miller's Court entrance without noticing him and raising serious objections to his behaviour.

Hi Ben.
Something tells me you do not have a copy of the Goads for Dorset St.

Never mind, here is a photo clearly showing the width, relative to people on the street.

https://photos.casebook.org/albums/millers1/normal_24dorset19thC.jpg

The footpath alone is about 4-5 feet, the road, something between 12-15 feet across, in total merely from the photo alone we can see from building to building across the street, is in the order of 25-30 feet.

Wickerman
12-02-2013, 06:43 PM
In addition to which, there is nothing in the police statement to indicate he took a single step into Dorset Street until after the pair entered the court,....

No Ben.
Hutchinson does not say where he was in his police statement.
Even in the press statement Hutchinson does not say where he was when he heard the conversation and saw the red handkerchief.

It is you who prefer him to be observing the red handkerchief from way off up at Commercial St.

This is the same as setting up a straw man argument.
First you claim Hutchinson is too far away to observe what he claims, but rather than decide you have jumped to a wrong conclusion, you prefer to cast Hutchinson as a liar.

It seems quite obvious to me Ben that if the distance from Commercial St. to Millers Court is too far for this observation then clearly Hutchinson was not at that corner when he made this observation - that only stands to reason.

Hutchinson does not say where he was stood to observe what he did. However, from his police statement, coupled with the confirmation of Sarah Lewis, we can quite readily place Hutchinson directly opposite Millers Court on the south side, close enough to see and hear what he claimed.
Therefore, if he did stand momentarily on the corner of Dorset & Commercial St., as he claimed to the press, then it was for a brief moment, because Sarah Lewis placed him directly across from her while she also observed the same couple that Hutchinson was watching.


Woah there, either you're listening to the main press versions of Hutchinson's statement or you're rejecting them. It's all a bit picky-choosy at the moment.

Correct. It is far more arduous to analyze press articles than to throw them out for the sake of one or two errors.
We don't throw anything out Ben.

What we do is weigh what is written and judge the contents on a case by case basis. Rarely is an article totally wrong in every instance, for the most part we find correct & incorrect statements mixed together, so yes we have to be picky.

What should be outstandingly obvious is that if you really think Hutchinson was claiming to see the red handkerchief from Commercial St. based on his press statement, then why would Abberline not object to this 'unlikely' sighting?
Abberline's conclusion that Hutchinson was truthful surely would not include this long distance observation which you interpret.
So, there must be something amiss.

Either, it was possible to see & hear what he claimed from that point.
Or, he was not at that point when he saw & heard what he claimed.

And as Hutchinson does not say precisely where he was standing at that time, then it is perhaps the second choice above that is preferable.

Ben
12-02-2013, 06:59 PM
Hi Richard,

I think its a fair possibility that our George was hanging around for the man to leave, not for any assault on the guy, but to call on Mary to seek refuge until his lodgings opened at 6,am

I'd be interested to see your source for the claim that the Victoria Home opened at 6.00am - to those not already in a possession of a weekly or daily ticket, of course. If he had one, he certainly didn't need to wait until 6.00am as pass-holders could gain access at any hour of the night. The assumption, therefore, must be that he didn't have one, which means he walked all the way back from Romford - some 13 miles - in nasty weather conditions, in the small hours of the morning, and with the certainty that his lodgings would deny him entry when he got back.

In order for Topping to have lied , and transform himself into someone involved in the case, he would have had to have been familiar with that person, and familiarize himself with the little known 'payment' allegedly given to the witness.

No he would not have done, Richard.

Toppy needn't have lied about about anything. His son, Reginald, only needed to have been told about Hutchinson by imprudent researchers who knocked on his door after blitz-phonecalling people with the last name "Hutchinson" living in the east end, and then worked a bogus story around what he learned in 1993, not 1888. No evidence that Toppy, who died in 1938, had anything to do with it.

That was absolutely all the ingredients required for a Toppy hoax. No prior knowledge of a payment (because there wasn't one), and no prior knowledge of Hutchinson's statement until Gorman Sickert and Fairclough showed it to him.

The fact that he shat out a brand new piece of nonsense about a bogus, impossible payment does not "coincide" with anything. He didn't have to "familiarise" himself with any report or gossip from 1888. Stories involving informants are popularly and historically linked to pay-offs, and despite the hilarious unlikelihood of it happening in this case, it was an easy and predictable story for a liar to weave into Hutchinson episode. Reg also speculated that Toppy was paid hush money in order to conceal his knowledge of Lord Randolph Churchill's involvement, which, much like the "pay-off" nonsense, played right into the imagination - and subsequently, the book - of the conspiracy theorists. The fact that one other deeply obscure and provably false paper also decided to to invoke the same "informant = cash payment" connection does not an "interesting coincidence" make.

In the absence of any trace of this 1970s broadcast (and frankly, if it existed, it would have been found by now), that too is inadmissible as evidence.

There is no evidence that Toppy ever "admitted" to being the witness from the Kelly investigation. His name appeared in a Royal conspiracy book, where he was accused of directly implicating Lord Randolph Churchill in the Kelly murder. That book was laughed out of town years ago, and discredited by its own author. Toppy is simply one of the many bogus components to that bogus theory, and is only revived today by those seeking, very unsuccessfully, to undermine the credibility of Hutchinson as a suspect.

But there is where we leave Toppy alone and get right back on topic.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
12-02-2013, 08:06 PM
Don't these Hutchinson debates become sprawling and repetitive.

Hutchinson does not say where he was in his police statement.
Even in the press statement Hutchinson does not say where he was when he heard the conversation and saw the red handkerchief.

Yes, he does, Jon.

He said he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, i.e. effectively still on Commercial Street. I'm afraid that on this point you're very much up against it either way, if your intention is cast Hutchinson in the role of a squeaky-clean honest-to-goodness witness. If you choose to accept the press account, and with it the only location we have for Hutchinson at the time of the alleged hanky-panky, you're stuck with the near impossibility of him being able to discern conversation and small coloured objects from that distance. On the other hand, if you wish to advance the baseless idea that he was a lot closer to the couple at that time, you lose the distance problem, but you're left having to explain Astrakah/Kelly's failure to notice Hutchinson at such close quarters and query his behaviour.

If you accept, as the police in 1888 did, that Hutchinson lied and was accordingly discredited, both of those problems disappear.

It seems quite obvious to me Ben that if the distance from Commercial St. to Millers Court is too far for this observation then clearly Hutchinson was not at that corner when he made this observation - that only stands to reason.

No it doesn't.

Because all you're doing is fiddling with Hutchinson's account, making it say what you want it to say, in order to make it more plausible. You may as well argue that "if the distance (..) was too great" for Hutchinson to have observed a flying pig in the sky, it "only stands to reason" that he was using exceptionally strong binoculars.

However, from his police statement, coupled with the confirmation of Sarah Lewis, we can quite readily place Hutchinson directly opposite Millers Court on the south side, close enough to see and hear what he claimed.

No.

No.

We can't "readily" place him there because there is not the slightest scrap of evidence from either his press or police account to put him there when Astrakhan and Kelly were allegedly outside the court, and it's impossible to accept that they didn't notice him had he been there. If Sarah Lewis confirmed any aspect of Hutchinson's account, it was when he was standing outside Crossingham's lodging house as 2:30am, just as a couple passed along Dorset Street towards its western end, when there was nobody in the court, nobody "passing up" the court, and nobody preparing to "pass up" the court.

It is far more arduous to analyze press articles than to throw them out for the sake of one or two errors.

But they're only errors (and the rest wholly accurate, apparently?!) according to you. But then you are advancing an extremely controversial, never-before-suggested sequence of events for Kelly's murder - far more controversial than the suggestion that a man behaving suspiciously at the scene (and then lying about it) might have been the killer. Nobody but you claims that Hutchinson supports Lewis to the extent that you do. I'm not having a dig here, you're entitled to believe what you want, but your decision to endorse Hutchinson's press account as accurate while dismissing as "errors" the bits that don't help his credibility and don't work well with Lewis, is a flawed approach. If his account was genuine, it shouldn't need as much "help" as you're giving it.

What should be outstandingly obvious is that if you really think Hutchinson was claiming to see the red handkerchief from Commercial St. based on his press statement, then why would Abberline not object to this 'unlikely' sighting?

He did.

That's the whole point.

The discrediting of his account coincided completely with the publication of his contradictory, heavily embellished press disclosures, suggesting very strongly that they played a major role in Hutchinson's disappearance without trace shortly thereafter. Mysterious non-existent Sunday policeman, implausible distances for seeing non-existent hankies, and a whole load more accessories to adorn the Astrakhan man may all have contributed in this regard.

The footpath alone is about 4-5 feet, the road, something between 12-15 feet across, in total merely from the photo alone we can see from building to building across the street, is in the order of 25-30 feet.

Ermm...no.

The average height of a woman in Victorian times was between 5 and 5 1/2 feet, and you only need to look at the woman on the extreme near left of the photo to appreciate that a lot of her would hang off the pavement if she lay horizontally on the street with her feet against the building. So the pavements were four feet at most, and that's being generous. Excluding the pavements, the road is certainly no wider that 12 feet, as can be judged from the man in the street at the centre of the photo. So feck knows where you're getting 30 feet from. And how are you excepting them to use the absolute full building-to-building distance (i.e. encompassing the full widths of the street and the pavements) anyway? Did all parties flatten themselves, pancake-like, to the walls?

All the best,
Ben

Ben
12-02-2013, 08:29 PM
Hi Gareth,

The fact that Sarah Lewis described Wideawake Man as located opposite the Court would seem to contradict this notion.

I meant "meaningless" in terms of being able to root someone to a particular location for any length of time and assume they must have stayed there, fixed to the ground, for the duration of their vigil, as opposed to accepting that they probably moved about a bit, especially if it was chilly.

Hutchinson might well have made an initial beeline for the court entrance, but then shifted about the general area, including the area in front of Crossingham's - a mere hatchback's length away.

Good to see you back here! :)

All the best,
Ben

richardnunweek
12-03-2013, 01:57 AM
Hi Ben,
We can repeat our arguments till doomsday, and get nowhere, and I have to admit I am fighting a losing battle , not only with you, but most of Casebook.
I guess its a case of my personal knowledge over a radio broadcast, v everyone else who never shared that experience.
I agree even if a tape did turn up, people would say it was invented by a enterprising producer, and that tale was carried forward many years and reproduced in The Ripper and the Royals in 1992.
I personally do not feel that Reg Hutchinson , and his younger brother , would tell lies concerning their long dead father, by saying they actually remembered the tale coming from his own lips, unless it did so.
Which would of course lead us back to all my [ Albeit] repetitive points, which I consider relevant.
I have been on Casebook long enough to realize my view will never be accepted, and it goes without saying I may be entirely wrong, but I can only state I am of sound mind, and although memory fades , in some cases never, and that broadcast happened .''It was my fathers greatest regret, that despite his efforts , nothing came of it'... words from that audio tape, allegedly spoken, either by the son of the witness, or someone quoting his words.
Its amazing how those words ,and the other quotation [ apparently from Mrs Maxwell] ''Her eyes looked queer, like suffering from a heavy cold'' have not been heard by any others on this site...
I guess it shows, how long yours truly has been involved with this subject...
Regards Richard.

richardnunweek
12-03-2013, 01:59 AM
Hi,
Just to make it clear , that Maxwell quote, was in printed form not audio..
Richard.

Varqm
12-03-2013, 02:34 AM
THE most plausible explanation for George Hutchinsons statement is between the lines....not 3, but 4 whole days before coming forward, only doing so after all the courtyard witnesses had been at the Inquest and it was over, and the story that was circulating about the witness who saw the wideawake hat man loitering and watching...he came forward only because he learned that he had been seen there by Sarah Lewis.

Whether he made up why he was there is up to you, or whether parts or the entirety of his story were concocted as well. But it seems that the most logical answer to his statement on Monday night was in some respects self preservation.

Cheers

Just thoughts on this.

1) No reports,as has been stated years ago, of any neighbour/friend/acquaintance saying they've seen
or Hutchinson is a friend of Kelly. My assumption is sensationalist newspaper would have look for more
info on this Hutchinson guy who suddenly came out with new info.

If they don't know him why would he care if Sarah Lewis has seen him.

2) The ripper might have been seen with Eddowes and Chapman before their murders ( at least to me in regards
to Lawende and Sarah Long) and he might not have cared being seen before he murdered.

3) The hysteria of that time was such that many witnesses came up with bogus info on the Stride and Chapman's
case for ex., a couple I think even came forward saying they were the ripper.
If all lying witnesses were there for self preservation, following your thought process, then almost all of them
are/were suspects.

4) You can't go to jail for making bogus claims in an investigation/inquiry at that time like what Hutchinson did.

It would have been great if we know what further investigations/inquiry they did on Hutchinson.

All in all when I weigh things it's hard to suspect Hutchinson for any crime. It's just probably the man loitering at 2:30 AM gives an impression of a tricky guy.

Garry Wroe
12-03-2013, 03:10 AM
If they don't know him why would he care if Sarah Lewis has seen him.

Both Hutchinson and Lewis lived locally. It is entirely possible, therefore, that Hutchinson recognized Lewis on the night of the murder and feared that she might have recognized him when it finally dawned on him that she had become a police witness. This would explain the three-day delay in Hutchinson's coming forward, the sheer implausibility of the Astrakhan story as divulged to Abberline, and why Hutchinson made no mention of having seen Lewis during his Dorset Street vigil.

Sally
12-03-2013, 03:18 AM
Fiona Rule says that Dorset Street was 24' wide - not sure what her reference is. White's Row, built at the same time (and by the same builders, I think) was 24' wide; so it's possible.

While we're at it, I've seen it suggested recently that Dorset Street wasn't really that bad - was quite nice, actually. Happily, contemporary sources tell us otherwise.

http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b351/jpg/103.html

Black on the map, black on the ground.

Ben
12-03-2013, 10:10 AM
Many thanks for posting that, Sally. Most interesting!

Hi Varqm,

The ripper might have been seen with Eddowes and Chapman before their murders ( at least to me in regards
to Lawende and Sarah Long) and he might not have cared being seen before he murdered.

I think he was probably less concerned, as opposed to entirely careless, and if he was Hutchinson, it probably owed to the fact that Long only glimpsed a rear view, while Dalston-based Lawende's sighting occurred in the City. Since the latter witness lived so far away, and the sighting occurred outside of Hutchinson's stomping ground, there was a reduced chance of a subsequent encounter on the streets. Not so with Sarah Lews, who, as Garry points out, lived in the same neighbourhood as Hutchinson.

If all lying witnesses were there for self preservation, following your thought process, then almost all of them
are/were suspects.

I can't speak for Michael here, but I suggest the exact opposite occurred; that because the vast majority of lying witnesses were not there for self-preservation, but were instead seeking money or publicity, it is understandable that the should have police lumped him in that category, overlooking the possibility of "self-preservation" in the process. The crucial difference, however, between Hutchinson and the average two-a-penny fame-seeker is that he was almost certainly observed loitering near a crime scene shortly before that crime was committed.

All in all when I weigh things it's hard to suspect Hutchinson for any crime

Well, considering his behaviour in the context of other serial killers, it's far more of a struggle to convincingly rule him out, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
12-03-2013, 12:10 PM
I personally do not feel that Reg Hutchinson , and his younger brother , would tell lies concerning their long dead father, by saying they actually remembered the tale coming from his own lips, unless it did so.

I'm afraid I do, Richard, and more importantly, the majority of serious researchers who were active and writing books at the time of the R&R publication were aware of Reginald Hutchinson, but chose not to feature him in their publications because they distrusted his claim to have been the son of the real George Hutchinson.

And I'm afraid I've seen no evidence of any similar claim from Reg's younger brother.

All the best,
Ben

Varqm
12-03-2013, 12:17 PM
Thank you guys for the reply.

Again you can't go to jail for making bogus claims in an investigation at that time so it was a free for all,
or the sky was the limit.

We'll we have to weigh the possiblity of the police asking Sarah Lewis if the man she'd seen was Hutchinson.
Or that she knew him.To me they would have. Common sense, Simple detective work. What came of it we do not know. Hutchinson dismissed as a witness was telling. Added to that no reports of anybody saying Hutchinson was a friend or an acquaintance of Kelly. If she knew Hutchinson and/or recognize him as the man at 2:30 AM he would have been a major witness.

Hanbury Street was as much his stomping ground as Dorset. Both were near and near the market.I grew up in a ghetto-like neighborhood near a market with many alleys and byways.Lots of people come and go.I did not know the majority of the people even across the street in those alleys . I lived there
for years. The weight goes to, that they did not know each other and Hutchinson would have not cared.


If all lying witnesses were there for self preservation, following your thought process, then almost all of them are/were suspects.
The weight goes to they were just that, liers. The other possibility,for self-preservation is small,if only because of historical precedence.

Varqm
12-03-2013, 12:20 PM
Also what's the main difference between Hutchinson and other bogus witnesses?

Sam Flynn
12-03-2013, 12:45 PM
[Toppy] appeared in a Royal conspiracy book, where he was accused of directly implicating Lord Randolph Churchill in the Kelly murder. That book was laughed out of town years ago, and discredited by its own author.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Ben. Just because the Bible makes up a great deal about King Herod, it doesn't mean that ALL it says about Herod should be dismissed out of hand.

Ben
12-03-2013, 12:46 PM
Hi Varqm,

Again, I'm well aware that "you can't go to jail for making bogus claims in an investigation at that time". Whatever else Hutchinson might have been guilty of, he was at the very least suspected of "making bogus claims", and no, he didn't go to jail for it. Like Packer and Violenia before him, the indications are that he was simply discredited as a bogus witness - one who was probably after money and/or publicity, and who wasn't even there when he claimed to be. In other words, the possibility that he lied in order to conceal his true reasons for being at a crime scene was never considered.

For instance, there is no evidence that any connection was made to Lewis' description of the loitering wideawake-wearing man. Had one been inferred, the press would certainly have made reference to it, especially when Hutchinson's account was initially (and enthusiastically) reported in the press. We shouldn't be terribly surprised about that - the police were deluged with other aspects of the investigation, and there is no evidence that any latter-day student of the case suggested a wideawake-Lewis connection until the 1990s.

Hanbury Street was as much his stomping ground as Dorset. Both were near and near the market.

Yes, but there was a comparatively minimal risk in the Hanbury Street case, owing to the fact that Elizabeth Long only gained a rear view of the suspect. Not so with Lewis, who not only registered his face, but his apparent fixation with the entrance to Miller's Court, where Kelly would be murdered an hour or so later.

If all lying witnesses were there for self preservation, following your thought process, then almost all of them are/were suspects.

But I'm saying the exact opposite.

I'm saying that most lying witnesses do not come forward for self-preservation. I'm arguing that because the majority of bogus witnesses come forward in pursuit of temporary fame or money, the police may have mistakenly concluded that Hutchinson was simply another one of these, thus overlooking the important consideration that he may have come forward after realising he'd been spotted outside Miller's Court.

Also what's the main difference between Hutchinson and other bogus witnesses?

The fact that there is no evidence to indicate that any of the others were seen by independent witnesses at or near a crime scene scene at a time relevant to the murder.

All the best,
Ben

Sam Flynn
12-03-2013, 12:53 PM
Both Hutchinson and Lewis lived locally. It is entirely possible, therefore, that Hutchinson recognized Lewis on the night of the murder.Lewis a couple of hundred yards to the north of Dorset Street, Hutchinson about the same distance to the south. In between, thousands of souls crammed into numerous, often temporary, dwellings. Taking these factors into account, the chances of their knowing one another can't have been particularly high. It's possible that they did, of course, but "entirely possible" is a bit of a stretch.

Sam Flynn
12-03-2013, 12:56 PM
Good to see you back here!
It's great to be back, Ben, and to be corresponding/sparring with you again :)

richardnunweek
12-03-2013, 03:20 PM
Hi Gareth,
It is indeed refreshing to see you posting again.as you can see we are still rambling on.
Regards Richard.

Sam Flynn
12-03-2013, 03:25 PM
Hi Gareth,
It is indeed refreshing to see you posting again.
Thanks, Nunners! Nice to see you, too.as you can see we are still rambling onI'm just pleased to see you've all still got the energy :)

richardnunweek
12-03-2013, 03:28 PM
Hello Ben,
I was not of the impression that researches /writers were well aware of one Reg Hutchinson and his claims at the the time of 'The Ripper and the Royal's'.
Are we talking about prior to 1992..?
As for Reg's younger brother, JD Hutchinson's father-in-law, the good lady clearly states that he was also familiar with the tale related by his father Topping.
So that makes it a brotherly invention.
Regards Richard.

Bridewell
12-03-2013, 04:32 PM
The problem I have with the scenario which has a guilty George Hutchinson coming forward solely in order to deflect attention away from himself is that it isn't a logical thing for him to do. It would (and did) have the opposite effect.
A full 4 days after the murder - and after the conclusion of the inquest - no-one had offered even a tentative identification of the man seen by Lewis. What reason was there to suppose that anyone ever would? (After all, as we're constantly being reminded, the street-lighting was supposedly so poor as to make detailed observation of any individual impossible - ironically one of the main reasons why Hutchinson and his Astrakhan Man are discounted). We can't simultaneously have an argument which says that
(1) Hutchinson was a liar because he couldn't have seen that much detail but
(2) Hutchinson was in mortal peril because Sarah Lewis, from a much greater distance, and over a much shorter time, would be able to positively identify the man she saw!
That's a double standard surely? Either the lighting was good enough to get a clear view or it wasn't.
Whitechapel and Spitalfield were heavily populated with men of similar description to Hutchinson. The only way a guilty Hutchinson was ever likely to become a suspect was if he did something really stupid like hand himself in on a plate by going to see Abberline with a c**k-and-bull story.

Ben
12-03-2013, 07:37 PM
Hi Bridewell,

Whether we consider it "logical" or not, serial killers have been approaching the police and injecting themselves into their investigations as "witnesses" over many decades since 1888. It is far from an unusual phenomenon, and experienced law enforcement officials will often be so familiar with the behavioural trait that they have, on occasion, laid traps in anticipation of the uncaught offender doing precisely that, and with successful results.

Hutchinson came forward almost immediately after the termination of the inquest, at which Sarah Lewis publicly divulged her sighting of the man in the wideawake who she saw loitering opposite Miller's Court shortly before the crime. It shouldn't really be surprising, therefore, that nobody had identified or named the man Lewis' saw over the days that elapsed prior to the inquest, when nobody but Lewis and the police (and the wideawake man himself) knew anything about it. What Hutchinson may have been concerned about is being recognised subsequent to the publication of the inquest witness evidence.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the description was sufficient alone for anyone to identify the loiterer as George Hutchinson. I'm suggesting, as Garry Wroe and others have suggested before, that he may have feared being recognised by Lewis at a later stage of the investigation and dragged in as a suspect before he'd had a chance to place the "helpful witness" card.

(1) Hutchinson was a liar because he couldn't have seen that much detail but
(2) Hutchinson was in mortal peril because Sarah Lewis, from a much greater distance, and over a much shorter time, would be able to positively identify the man she saw!
That's a double standard surely?

No.

Of course not.

Because what has "detail" to do with the possibility of Lewis being able to recognise Hutchinson as the man she saw? Nothing at all. We know full well that Lewis' description of Hutchinson was far from "detailed", but that wouldn't have prevented a subsequent recognition of his face. Similarly, I've not heard it suggested by anyone that Hutchinson was incapable of recognising the Astrakhan man again - only that he could not have noticed and memorized all the detail that he claimed to have recorded in the time and conditions available. Just go and compare the level of detail in the Hutchinson and Lewis sightings.

The only way a guilty Hutchinson was ever likely to become a suspect was if he did something really stupid like hand himself in on a plate by going to see Abberline with a c**k-and-bull story.

But then that's precisely what known serial killers have done in similar situations.

If you'd prefer to accept that the killer was a well-dressed, ostentatious, sinister-looking Jew who would stand out a mile anywhere, as opposed to an ordinary local who realised he'd been seen, and lied about his reasons for being there, be my guest, but I know where my study of serial killers leads me, given the two options.

All the best,
Ben

Varqm
12-03-2013, 07:49 PM
Hi,

As per my post:

"We'll we have to weigh the possiblity of the police asking Sarah Lewis if the man she'd seen was Hutchinson.
Or that she knew him.To me they would have. Common sense, Simple detective work. What came of it we do not know. Hutchinson dismissed as a witness was telling. Added to that no reports of anybody saying Hutchinson was a friend or an acquaintance of Kelly. If she knew Hutchinson and/or recognize him as the man at 2:30 AM he would have been a major witness."

The weight just go to that Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis did not know each other and therefore Hutchinson/Ripper would not have bothered.

Question, based on the case notes that we know which is more likely that Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson knew each other or not.

Ben
12-03-2013, 08:06 PM
It's great to be back, Ben, and to be corresponding/sparring with you again :)

Likewise, Gareth. It's been far too long!

Pursuant to Garry's post, I'd argue that the possibility of Lewis and Hutchinson being acquainted, however mildly, with one another was potentially greater than the physical distances between their respective homes implied, especially if Lewis was in the habit of visiting her Keyler friends at Miller's Court. Likewise, if Hutchinson really had known Kelly for three years, the likelihood is that he was aware of her residence at Miller's Court and the comers and goers thereto, including - potentially - Lewis.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Ben.

I'm afraid Reg Hutchinson's tall tale was not so much the "baby" to Melvyn Fairclough's proverbial "bathwater", but rather the stray pube that gets inevitably consigned, along with that bathwater, to the loving plughole.

(If you'll forgive the rather disgusting, totally apt, and not entirely unfunny analogy!)

I was not of the impression that researches /writers were well aware of one Reg Hutchinson and his claims at the the time of 'The Ripper and the Royal's'.
Are we talking about prior to 1992..?

Around the same time, Richard.

Whilst Fairclough was willing to publish Reginald's claims, none of the former's well-known researcher contemporaries would touch it, having smelt a rat.

As for Reg's younger brother, JD Hutchinson's father-in-law, the good lady clearly states that he was also familiar with the tale related by his father Topping.

Reg's younger brother is a good lady?

All the best,
Ben

Wickerman
12-03-2013, 08:23 PM
Yes, he does, Jon.

He said he stood at the corner of Dorset Street, i.e. effectively still on Commercial Street.

What he told the police was, that he followed them.

"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them."

How far did he follow them?, Sarah Lewis tells us that he stood opposite Millers court while 'the couple' were in view.
You told me you believe Sarah Lewis, so if he paused momentarily on the corner of Dorset St. then thats all it was. Obviously he cannot see and hear what he claimed from that location, so we can trust he continued to follow the couple.


On the other hand, if you wish to advance the baseless idea that he was a lot closer to the couple at that time, you lose the distance problem, but you're left having to explain Astrakah/Kelly's failure to notice Hutchinson at such close quarters and query his behaviour.

What makes you think he was not noticed?


If you accept, as the police in 1888 did, that Hutchinson lied and was accordingly discredited, both of those problems disappear.

The police were quite happy with Hutchinson's account, as expressed in black and white. Anything to the contrary is make believe.


... If Sarah Lewis confirmed any aspect of Hutchinson's account, it was when he was standing outside Crossingham's lodging house as 2:30am, just as a couple passed along Dorset Street towards its western end, when there was nobody in the court, nobody "passing up" the court, and nobody preparing to "pass up" the court.

There was no other couple, remember!
He tells us himself, the only other person he saw was a man enter a lodging-house. So, Lewis's couple & Hutchinson's couple, were the same couple.

Lewis said there was no-one in the court, and Hutchinson made the same observation when he went up the court - so they agree. Reason - the couple had gone indoors!
Lewis & Hutchinson are telling the same story.


... your decision to endorse Hutchinson's press account as accurate while dismissing as "errors" the bits that don't help his credibility and don't work well with Lewis, is a flawed approach.

(Note: I endorse the police version)
Well, picky is as picky does right? - you champion the press version but at the same time dismiss the Sunday morning sighting which only exists in this press version.
I take from this that you fully understand my position of disseminating the sources - though you appear to be pretending that such an approach is flawed?




He did.

That's the whole point.

The discrediting of his account coincided completely with the publication of his contradictory, heavily embellished press disclosures, ...

:) Its not like we have not been down this road before, you know very well the police did not discredit Hutchinson.

Until you provide such evidence from a police source in black and white, no-one is going to believe you.
In that, I am not suggesting that there are not others who share the same belief, but make believe is not fact. And to date this argument is heavy on make believe but light on fact.

Ben
12-03-2013, 08:51 PM
What he told the police was, that he followed them.

Yes, but not immediately, and not all the way to a vantage point opposite the Miller's Court entrance, or else he'd have been seen by Astrakhan and Kelly and remonstrated with. That's shockingly obvious, even more so than Hutchinson not being able to detect small coloured objects and hanky-related conversations from the corner of Dorset Street. It doesn't matter if you go with the press version or your misinterpretation of the police statement, you're completely buggered if your intention is to weave a sequence of events into Hutchinson's narrative that supposedly supports Lewis.

Obviously he cannot see and hear what he claimed from that location, so we can trust he continued to follow the couple.

You're fiddling with things again to make them seem more plausible.

He can't have seen the ornamental detail of a flying pig's silver necklace from that location, so "we can trust" that he must have had super-special binoculars.

No. We can't.

The police were quite happy with Hutchinson's account, as expressed in black and white. Anything to the contrary is make believe.

Jon, if you keep repeating the same erroneous claims, I'm never going to get bored of correcting them. You are therefore advised against wasting your own time. The police provably communicated with the Echo, and provably informed them that Hutchinson's statement had been discredited because of doubts about his credibility and motivation for coming forward. It would be tedious to have to copy and paste from previous debates if you're bored enough to go there again.

So, Lewis's couple & Hutchinson's couple, were the same couple

Emphatically not.

Absolutely and permanently no way.

This inexplicable misunderstanding is based on your wayward acceptance of the Daily News' erroneous report. Sarah Lewis saw only one couple on Dorset Street, and her evidence makes very clear the fact that they had nothing whatsoever to do with Miller's Court.

you champion the press version but at the same time dismiss the Sunday morning sighting which only exists in this press version.

I champion no such thing.

I champion the discrediting of an account that was discredited in 1888, that's all.

All the press account illustrates is weakness in his embellished narrative, specifically his claim to have seen and heard what he alleged from the corner of Dorset Street. You attempt to lessen the implausibility factor by moving Hutchinson to a location that Hutchinson never claimed to have been in at that time. You're "helping" Hutchinson by altering his account, to what end I know not.

Until you provide such evidence from a police source in black and white, no-one is going to believe you

No offense, Jon, but there are considerably more adherents to the reality that Hutchinson was discredited than there are "Isaacstrakhan" supporters, or people who buy into your proven-wrong Daily News version. Just saying.

richardnunweek
12-04-2013, 01:27 AM
Good morning Ben,
I am sure you comprehended my reply regarding Reg's younger brother. although I admit it was hardly queens English.
To clarify for future generations.
One time poster to Casebook[ literally] JD Hutchinson, informed us that her father -in law was Reg Hutchinson's younger brother,and Toppings youngest son, and 'he' was also aware of his fathers tale.
With reference to the ''others's' smelling a rat, I congratulate them on their physic abilities, I personally would have considered Reg's oral history rather a scoop,[ but then that's not surprising is it Ben?]
Regards Richard.

Wickerman
12-04-2013, 07:05 PM
Yes, but not immediately, and not all the way to a vantage point opposite the Miller's Court entrance, or else he'd have been seen by Astrakhan and Kelly and remonstrated with.

Not at all, these dwellers of the backstreets were accustomed to being watched by all and sundry - that's all there was to do in them days, loiter around and watch what everybody else was doing.


It doesn't matter if you go with the press version or your misinterpretation of the police statement, you're completely buggered if your intention is to weave a sequence of events into Hutchinson's narrative that supposedly supports Lewis.

I'd say it pieces together reasonably well.
The female in Lewis's couple was 'the worse for drink', while the female in Hutchinson's couple was 'spreeish', these couples were in the same location, at the same time, being watched by the same man.
And, Hutchinson admitted that, apart from Astrachan & Kelly, there was only one man in the street at that time - no second couple.


The police provably communicated with the Echo, and provably informed them that Hutchinson's statement had been discredited because of doubts about his credibility and motivation for coming forward.

And as with all the previous debates, you have still to provide any proof whatsoever. That, much like your argument, has remained unchanged.
Claiming to have proven some detail which to the world at large remains unproven sets a dubious example.


I champion the discrediting of an account that was discredited in 1888, that's all.

You will perhaps understand if the more serious members wait for such proof to be offered.
What really surprises me Ben is how resolutely you repeat these claims of proof when everyone reading your claims has yet to see anything of the sort.
Opinion is not proof, Ben.

You attempt to lessen the implausibility factor by moving Hutchinson to a location that Hutchinson never claimed to have been in at that time.

The implausibility is only introduced by you insisting those observations were made from a vantage point which was too far away.
Hutchinson does not say where he was when he observed the red handkerchief. It only makes common sense that he would have to be closer than the corner of the street.

Afterall, it is you who is adamant on creating implausible explanations for Hutchinson's claims. You choose the implausible in order to try discredit the witness, rather than accept the plausible which then verifies the witness - but we can't have that can we Ben :)

No offense, Jon, but there are considerably more adherents to the reality that Hutchinson was discredited than there are "Isaacstrakhan" supporters, or people who buy into your proven-wrong Daily News version. Just saying.

This sounds like quantity over quality.
You might be surprised how many prefer to support some kind of Royal Conspiracy, they also may outnumber the more grounded core researchers of the case - the same core that also don't accept that Hutchinson was discredited.

Isaacs = Astrachan?, merely my suggestion based on known evidence about the man. I aim to convince no-one, it is only necessary to point out that such a man as described by Hutchinson did exist.

Ben
12-08-2013, 11:58 AM
Not at all, these dwellers of the backstreets were accustomed to being watched by all and sundry - that's all there was to do in them days, loiter around and watch what everybody else was doing.

Loitering around in the cold and rain at 2.30am, eschewing the opportunity of a bed and crucial rest for the following day's hard toil? You can forget that idea immediately. I don't know what you mean when you say "that's all there was to do in them (sic) days", but I think you'll find sleeping has been the number #1 activity at 2.30am for many, many years.

The female in Lewis's couple was 'the worse for drink', while the female in Hutchinson's couple was 'spreeish', these couples were in the same location, at the same time, being watched by the same man.

The only thing correct about the above is that both Hutchinson and Lewis undoubtedly observed the same couple strolling along Dorset Street. Where things go haywire, however, is your refusal to accept that they did not, as the Daily News erroneously printed, enter Miller's Court, and nor could they possibly have been Kelly and Astrakhan. The complete lack of interest shown in the couple by either the police or the press should be your first clue in this regard. If you think female intoxication was remotely uncommon back then, guess again.

And as with all the previous debates, you have still to provide any proof whatsoever.

I've provided the proof, and it is your time to waste arguing otherwise. Try to get out of the flawed mentality that everyone's monitoring these Hutchinson debates as obsessively as some of their more regular contributors are, because you'll find that's a long way from reality. So protracted and long-winded are most Hutchinson debates than any meaningful discoveries tend to get lost in the rubble, or at the very least, their significance not fully appreciated. In addition to which, a lot of "serious members" don't even bother checking the Hutchinson threads because of the interminable posting marathons that go on there.

Your rather amusing impression that the "world a large" is shining its big old Spotlight on Hutchinson threads waiting for me to provide proof is, therefore, a seriously misplaced one.

The implausibility is only introduced by you insisting those observations were made from a vantage point which was too far away.

It's called going with the evidence.

And the only location we have for Hutchinson during the alleged hanky episode is at the corner of Dorset and Commercial Street, too far to discern small coloured objects and conversation, but any closer and we're left having to explain the even less plausible scenario of Kelly and Astrakhan failing to notice Hutchinson clinging to them like a limpet.

It only makes common sense that he would have to be closer than the corner of the street.

No, it's common sense that if he was too far away to have made the observation, he probably lied about the observation. Various survival accounts from the Titanic disaster tell dramatic tales of Captain Smith being washed over on the bridge by a wave, despite the survivors in question being at least a mile away on a lifeboat. Common sense does not dictate that the fibbing survivors must have been closer to the scene.

You choose the implausible in order to try discredit the witness, rather than accept the plausible which then verifies the witness

No, you choose not to recognise that the implausible claims discredit the witness, but fiddle instead with the actual claims of the witness in order to make him seem plausible. And we can't have that, Jon. :) :)

the same core that also don't accept that Hutchinson was discredited.

It's the return of "the core" again!

I don't know where this nonsense has suddenly come from, but it's irritating me "to the core".

There is no "core" of serious researchers who even monitor Hutchinson debates, let alone regularly come down in favour of your opinions over mine.

Isaacs = Astrachan?, merely my suggestion based on known evidence about the man. I aim to convince no-one, it is only necessary to point out that such a man as described by Hutchinson did exist.

But Isaacs does nothing to enhance the credibility of Hutchinson's description. "Hutchinson did exist because...because...Isaacs!" Nope, not seeing it myself, especially as Isaacs couldn't possibly have been Astrakhan, even if the latter did exist.

Ben
12-08-2013, 12:12 PM
One time poster to Casebook[ literally] JD Hutchinson, informed us that her father -in law was Reg Hutchinson's younger brother,and Toppings youngest son, and 'he' was also aware of his fathers tale.

But that isn't good enough, Richard.

It's just a claim from a "one-time poster" using the name JD Hutchinson. I'm afraid it's only reasonable to expect a little more beef than that. Uncorroborated rumours aside, there is no evidence for any "Toppy = Hutchinson" claim existing prior to the early 1990s. One researcher has been in touch with Toppy's descendants, and he didn't find any either.

With reference to the ''others's' smelling a rat, I congratulate them on their physic abilities

...whereas you should be congratulating them on their powers of discernment in rejecting Reg's account.

Regards,
Ben

Wickerman
12-08-2013, 01:27 PM
Loitering around in the cold and rain at 2.30am, eschewing the opportunity of a bed and crucial rest for the following day's hard toil? You can forget that idea immediately.

I agree, we can all forget it, you just invented it.

Neither Lewis nor Hutchinson mention anything about rain, and even Mary Cox only said it was raining about 1:00 am when she returned.

This is your predictable plan of attack, to exaggerate any point to work in your favour. Lets just stick to what was written, while Hutchinson was on his vigil there is no mention of rain.


The only thing correct about the above is that both Hutchinson and Lewis undoubtedly observed the same couple strolling along Dorset Street. Where things go haywire, however, is your refusal to accept that they did not, as the Daily News erroneously printed, enter Miller's Court, and nor could they possibly have been Kelly and Astrakhan.

Both Hutchinson AND the Daily News place the couple walking up the passage.

I've provided the proof, and it is your time to waste arguing otherwise.

You have?
Didn't you just admit that in your opinion the police could not prove Hutchinson had lied, therefore, no proof could exist?

If no proof existed, then no press article concerning this issue could be based on proof.
That reads to me like you just pulled the rug out from under your own theory.

No proof ever existed that Hutchinson had lied to police. Therefore, all press articles concerning the above are exposed as conjecture!

Your rather amusing impression that the "world a large" is shining its big old Spotlight on Hutchinson threads waiting for me to provide proof is, therefore, a seriously misplaced one.

Well, I'm sure if you ever get around to writing a book such 'proof' would be a necessity. Sadly, our wait is now in vain, you admit no such proof ever existed (sigh), what a let down.



No, it's common sense that if he was too far away to have made the observation, he probably lied about the observation.

No, what it means is you have placed him at the wrong location.


There is no "core" of serious researchers who even monitor Hutchinson debates, let alone regularly come down in favour of your opinions over mine.


As you may have re-read by now, they had their say and have no intention of repeating their objections.

Now that you have finally admitted that the police did not accuse Hutchinson of lying then we have no need to prolong this "I have proved he was discredited" angle.

The question then becomes why was the statement by Hutchinson suddenly deemed to be of reduced importance?
On this we apparently agree.

Once the report from Dr Bond came through the system it naturally would create cause for reflection. No medical conclusion will be deemed infallible, but in consequence of Bond's opinion it would be prudent to open up two parallel lines of investigation.
To still pursue the Hutchinson suspect, but at the same time make thorough investigations for the Cox suspect.

This, in my opinion, is the cause of the Echo article being worded the way it was- the reason they described Hutchinson's statement to be of reduced (NOT discredited) importance.

It was apparent to the reporters on the street that detectives were pursuing two different suspects. What the press did not know was why, hence the Star jumped for a most controversial explanation.
Controversial, and false.

Ben
12-08-2013, 04:51 PM
Neither Lewis nor Hutchinson mention anything about rain, and even Mary Cox only said it was raining about 1:00 am when she returned.

Irrelevant and immaterial.

It doesn't matter whether or not it happened to be raining at 2:30am, the salient point is that it was a cold and miserable November night. It is preposterous to pretend that loitering on Dorset Street was perfectly normal, voyeuristic behaviour for people to engage in at that time of the morning, in an exposed location, and in those weather conditions. It's a silly, silly point to try to defend, and you don't succeed in defending it.

Both Hutchinson AND the Daily News place the couple walking up the passage.

The Daily News was proven false and Hutchinson's statement was discredited, which means they can't possibly corroborate each other. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Didn't you just admit that in your opinion the police could not prove Hutchinson had lied, therefore, no proof could exist?

Yes.

I never said I had any proof that Hutchinson lied. I said I had proof that Hutchinson was discredited by the police because he was suspected of lying, because I do, and I've provided it many times. I'd appreciate it if you properly acquainted yourself with the specifics of what I've been arguing before making silly, inaccurate claims about the rugs being pulled out from under my theory. The press were not relying on their own conjecture. They were simply reporting on police opinion at the time, which was that Hutchinson was discredited because of doubts surrounding his credibility, not because the police were in possession of proof that he lied.

No, what it means is you have placed him at the wrong location.

I've "placed" him where he "placed" himself, according to the only evidence available, whereas you're fiddling about with his narrative in the hope that you can salvage some semblance of credibility from it, and you're doing an thoroughly botched job of it.

Now that you have finally admitted that the police did not accuse Hutchinson of lying then we have no need to prolong this "I have proved he was discredited" angle.

Oh, for f...

Look, it's perfectly simple. I have proved he was discredited, but only because the police arrived at the opinion that his evidence was untrustworthy, not because they had proved him a liar. In the absence of such proof, the police could not "accuse" him of being a liar because Hutchinson had only to say "prove it" and walk away.

Once the report from Dr Bond came through the system it naturally would create cause for reflection. No medical conclusion will be deemed infallible

No.

Not this Bond business again.

Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, which was not accepted without question by the police. On the contrary, it is quite clear from other sources that the police considered the mutually corroborative evidence of Lewis and Prater to be a rough guide in that respect. The Echo makes perfectly clear the reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted", and it involved his lateness in coming forward and the inevitable impact this had on his credibility. To extrapolate from the Echo report that Bond had anything remotely to do with the "very reduced importance" attached to Hutchinson's account would mean flying in the fact of what the article actually said.

And no, there is no evidence that the police "still persue(d)" Hutchinson after 15th November, after the Star reported that Hutchinson was "discredited" in yet another obviously accurate report. Hutchinson was lumped together with Packer, another bogus witness, in the report in question entitled "Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents"

Wickerman
12-08-2013, 07:30 PM
It doesn't matter whether or not it happened to be raining at 2:30am, the salient point is that it was a cold and miserable November night. It is preposterous to pretend that loitering on Dorset Street was perfectly normal,...

Ah, so because you are again shown to be mistaken, this time about the rain, now, it doesn't matter?

Oh, by the way, there were two or three other people also loitering around outside the Britannia on this cold and miserable night.
It was 39 deg F, 4 deg C., are you sure you are fully in touch with what passed for normal activity in the East End in the late 19th century?


The Daily News was proven false and Hutchinson's statement was discredited, which means they can't possibly corroborate each other. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Here you go with those bogus claims of 'proof' again.


I never said I had any proof that Hutchinson lied. I said I had proof that Hutchinson was discredited by the police because he was suspected of lying, because I do, and I've provided it many times.

Without any proof he lied, there is no proof he was discredited (by the police?). Only an official report explaining the cause and effect constitutes proof of that.
You have neither, oh please, we are not reaching for those sad excuses for news reports again are we?

Why don't you publish a book on this?, at the very least you will then learn that my views on your theories are more prevalent than you choose to accept.
Genuine proof, has very narrow limitations. No-one, who desires to be taken seriously, relies on solitary unreferenced newspaper opinions as proof.


The press were not relying on their own conjecture. They were simply reporting on police opinion at the time, which was that Hutchinson was discredited because of doubts surrounding his credibility, not because the police were in possession of proof that he lied.

Excuse me here Ben, but that is pure poppycock.
For you to suggest the police would actually share their inside thoughts concerning a witness before they have established any cause for that concern is ridiculous.
Had the police been given true cause to doubt Hutchinson then he would have been detained, just like Isaacs was, while they thoroughly check him out.
This is where you really DO need to discuss your ideas with someone who has police experience. What you suggest is pure nonsense.

"Not sure", is not an option. Scotland Yard are looking for the most vicious murderer known. If they had doubts about Hutchinson, they could have their man in their grasp. Scotland Yard will turn every stone to satisfy themselves as to whether he is telling the truth, or that he has lied.
We, that is everyone alive today, can be rest assured that Scotland Yard had found no cause for doubt concerning George Hutchinson at any point.
There were only two options, "yes" we are convinced and he can go or, "No" we are not convinced, and he will be detained.



Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, which was not accepted without question by the police.

I suggest you re-read up on the influence Dr Bond had on police opinion, and in face of a majority view, on the cause of the death of Rose Mylett.
Robert Anderson sent Dr Bond in five days after the death of Mylett.

The overwhelming majority of opinion by several doctors on that case was that Dr Brownfield was correct, Mylett had been murdered.
However, the police had been "induced" (remember that word before?), to follow the opinions of Dr Bond that the cause of death was more likely by natural causes.
The jury & the Coroner chose to return a verdict of willful murder.

Do not underestimate the influence Dr Bond had with Robert Anderson.
If Anderson was convinced, then Scotland Yard will follow suit.


And no, there is no evidence that the police "still persue(d)" Hutchinson after 15th November, after the Star reported that Hutchinson was "discredited" in yet another obviously accurate report.

Er, its been proven Ben (by your standards, at least).


Hutchinson was lumped together with Packer, another bogus witness, in the report in question entitled "Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents"

Hutchinson was lumped with Packer .....by the press (Star).
What you need is a police report lumping Hutchinson with Packer, but as no such comparison exists, and the reason why is too obvious, then you reach back to those ill-informed, uncorroborated, inaccurate newspaper stories.

It was fodder for the masses Ben, not to be taken seriously.

Ben
12-08-2013, 08:20 PM
Ah, so because you are again shown to be mistaken, this time about the rain, now, it doesn't matter?

Do not pathetically and laughably imagine you have shown me to be mistaken. It was known to have been raining that night, and it may or may not have been raining at the precise moment in time when he was clocked, in all probability, by Lewis. The conditions that night were cold and miserable, as has been established for decades, and you piping up with nonsense now is not about to change any of that. There were two people, not three, outside the Britannia that night, and they were not loitering for the sheer boredom of it. They were, in all probability, a prostitute and her client. Most people did not get out of bed at 2:30 just for the sheer joy of loitering, nor would that sacrifice their comfort for such a pursuit.

Without any proof he lied, there is no proof he was discredited (by the police?). Only an official report explaining the cause and effect constitutes proof of that.

This is preposterous.

The police were perfectly capable of discrediting a witness on the basis of a suspicion that the witness in question was lying, and in the absence of proof that they were. What is the realistic alternative? Endorse any old $hit as accurate and worth pursing purely because it can't be proven false? Don't ever, ever consider policing as a career option - ever. And don't make me chunder and laugh in equal measure by pretending that your particular views on my theories are even remotely "prevalent". No theory is immune to criticism, but your particular objections are based on some truly baffling misunderstandings.

The Echo's proven communication with the police establishes that at the very least, the credibility of Hutchinson's claims came to be doubted.

For you to suggest the police would actually share their inside thoughts concerning a witness before they have established any cause for that concern is ridiculous.

You're completely wrong, you annoy me intensely by dismissing as "poppycock" that which you obstinately refuse to understand, and as such, I don't value your opinion, but I'm compelled to respond nonetheless. A competent police force is perfectly capable - and professionally obliged - to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of eyewitness evidence. They don't always have a magic wand at their disposal for determining truth from untruth. They have to make judgments according to the perceived merit of the information they receive, and Hutchinson ultimately failed to pass muster in this regard. When the police harbour suspicions about the credibility (or lack thereof) or a particular witness, there is no rule book that asserts that they would never disclose as much to trusted members of the press. It is horribly naive to argue otherwise.

Had the police been given true cause to doubt Hutchinson then he would have been detained, just like Isaacs was, while they thoroughly check him out.

No.

Wrong.

Hopelessly, transparently, and permanently wrong.

Isaacs was dragged in as a suspect, while Hutchinson approached the voluntarily as a witness. There is no evidence that the latter was ever contemplated as a suspect. In discrediting his evidence, the implication was that Hutchinson was a publicity or money-seeker, not the real Jack the Ripper attempting to lie his way out of a potential noose. Was Packer or Violenia ever considered a suspect, despite their self-confessed proximity to the murder scene? No. And nor was Hutchinson.

There is not a scrap of evidence that the police supported Bond's time of death, and strong indications against it. The fact that a doctor supplied a report doesn't mean that the police are duty-bound to accept it, especially when it argues against mutually supportive eyewitness evidence. The huge irony here is that you too reject Bond's time of death, and yet here you are wrongly insisting that the police subscribed to it.

The Star accurately reported the detail that the police supported a later time of death than that proffered by Dr. Bond. For what possible reason would they invent something so inconsequential to the reputation of the police? The police evidently believed the cry of "murder" to have been uttered by the victim shortly before her death.

Incidentally, your insistence that Bond exerted a major influence on the police is another old-hat misapprehension that you still appear to labour under. I can see why the police as a collective might have valued Bond's opinion in particular, and in contrast to other medical professsionals, but Anderson was not simply a hapless sponge to whatever Bond suggested. It will be remembered that Bond believed Alice McKenzie to have been a ripper victim, while Anderson disagreed.

What you need is a police report lumping Hutchinson with Packer, but as no such comparison exists, and the reason why is too obvious, then you reach back to those ill-informed, uncorroborated, inaccurate newspaper stories.

We know for an absolute ironclad certainty - and yes, I will repeat and repeat and repeat this for as long as you're stubborn enough to keep arguing with me - that the Echo was correct in reporting the discrediting of Hutchinson by the police. The fact that the Star "echoed" the same observation was a testament to the fact that they too were in the loop, at least with regard to Hutchinson.

Wickerman
12-09-2013, 07:58 PM
Do not pathetically and laughably imagine you have shown me to be mistaken.

What is the alternative, accusing you of intentionally trying to mislead?
Which do you prefer?


The police were perfectly capable of discrediting a witness on the basis of a suspicion that the witness in question was lying, and in the absence of proof that they were.

What is that supposed to mean, exactly?
The last witness to see a victim alive is potentially a prime suspect. I've lost count how many different members with policing experience has told you that basic fact.

If any part of the statement given by that witness is suspected of being false, it will be checked out.
Whether the witness is detained while being investigated will depend on what portion of that statement was suspicious.

In the case of Hutchinson, if his venture to Romford turned out to be false, there is no conceivable reason to discredit the rest of his story.
If, on the other hand, the Astrachan character turned out to be false, then the police have just cause to detain Hutchinson.
In this case, IF his story is now discredited that fact will be verified by him being detained in prison.

You have yet to provide a rational, believable reason for the police to discredit their principal witness, turning him into a principal suspect, but also release him without detention.
I'm sorry if that was too difficult to understand, but this is the problem you are left with.


The Echo's proven communication with the police establishes that at the very least, the credibility of Hutchinson's claims came to be doubted.

There is no proven communication between the Echo and police (this is your c-l-a-i-m).


... When the police harbour suspicions about the credibility (or lack thereof) or a particular witness, there is no rule book that asserts that they would never disclose as much to trusted members of the press.

I can't believe that you truly believe this nonsense.
The police will not discuss their suspicions about a witness with the press.
That is not a debatable issue.


In discrediting his evidence, the implication was that Hutchinson was a publicity or money-seeker, not the real Jack the Ripper attempting to lie his way out of a potential noose.

You first need to establish this discrediting took place. And, you have no idea what the reason was for your fictitious discrediting, money-seeker or murderer.
Hutchinson will become a murder suspect before he is suspected of merely seeking money.


There is not a scrap of evidence that the police supported Bond's time of death, and strong indications against it.

Ben, you are a fine one to talk about 'not a scrap of evidence' - please reflect on your c-l-a-i-m-s about Hutchinson.


The fact that a doctor supplied a report doesn't mean that the police are duty-bound to accept it, especially when it argues against mutually supportive eyewitness evidence.

It is Anderson who cracks the whip.


The huge irony here is that you too reject Bond's time of death, and yet here you are .......... insisting that the police subscribed to it.

That much is correct.


The fact that the Star "echoed" the same observation was a testament to the fact that they too were in the loop, at least with regard to Hutchinson.

The Star did not 'echo' the words of their contemporary, they distorted them.

Ben
12-10-2013, 01:04 PM
What is the alternative, accusing you of intentionally trying to mislead?
Which do you prefer?

I'd prefer you not to lash out with ludicrous and unpleasant accusations based on your own misunderstandings, or for you to extricate yourself from further discussions with me if you're incapable of doing that.

The last witness to see a victim alive is potentially a prime suspect. I've lost count how many different members with policing experience has told you that basic fact.

If it's "potentially" it's not a "fact, for crying out loud.

And once again, your constant references to other members and what they supposedly "told me" several years ago smacks of insecurity. It's a plea for "help", and a clarion call to join in the crusade against Ben.

What a lot of people don’t understand is that policing as an organized body was still it its infancy back then, and they had no precedent at all for serial killers (or perhaps any type of criminal) injecting themselves into their own investigation and requesting an interview. Since the very concept would have seemed like anathema back then - despite modern commentators talking about “common sense” from the fortunate perspective of hindsight – it is unlikely in the extreme that Hutchinson was viewed as a suspect. Had it been otherwise, Abberline would have said so in his private, internal report; something along the lines of, “I believe this statement to be true, but then again, he might be Jack the Ripper, so I’d better just check to make sure he’s not”. Unless people want to argue that he already had made sure, which is just impossible.

If any part of the statement given by that witness is suspected of being false, it will be checked out.

They may make investigations, but as with the entire question of the ripper's identity, investigations don't always lead to answers.

In the case of Hutchinson, if his venture to Romford turned out to be false, there is no conceivable reason to discredit the rest of his story.

But a competent investigator would treat the "rest of his story" with considerable caution, knowing he lied about one aspect of it. If he's capable of lying, why can't the rest of it be a lie too?

In this case, IF his story is now discredited that fact will be verified by him being detained in prison.

100% false.

And do stop making these ironclad ex-cathedra pronouncements when it's clear you have no insight into these matters at all. Did Packer go to prison for being suspected of lying? No. Did Emanuel Violenia go to prison when he was suspected of lying, despite also claiming to have been the last witness to see the victim? No.

So where are you getting this stuff from?

You cannot send a witness to prison for suspecting him of lying.

The witness has only to challenge them to prove it, and if they can't prove it, the witness skips away into the sunset.

You have yet to provide a rational, believable reason for the police to discredit their principal witness, turning him into a principal suspect, but also release him without detention.

The police evidently discredited Packer as a publicity/money/thrill-seeker despite the fact that he claimed to have been at a crime scene when the crime was committed.

The police evidently discredited Violenia as a publicity/money/thrill-seeker despite the fact that he claimed to have been at a crime scene when the crime was committed.

The police evidently discredited Hutchinson as a publicity/money/thrill-seeker despite the fact that he claimed to have been at a crime scene when the crime was committed.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THESE THREE MEN WAS INVESTIGATED AS A SUSPECT.

So sorry if it's confusing.

There is no proven communication between the Echo and police (this is your c-l-a-i-m).

Yes there is.

Yes there definitely is.

The police will not discuss their suspicions about a witness with the press.
That is not a debatable issue.

More of these abysmal sweeping and inaccurate statements.

It is naive in the shocking extreme the way you refuse to accept that detectives have always, ALWAYS, divulged material to the press, and have always, ALWAYS, taken into their confidence trusted members of the press. That is not a debatable issue, and I'm horrified to see this nonsense dredged up again here, after I demolished it so thoroughly on the "What the press knew" thread.

Hutchinson will become a murder suspect before he is suspected of merely seeking money.

Absolute nonsense.

I just can't believe what I'm reading.

You are pronouncing with undeserved confidence about matters you have demonstrably no knowledge of, and it is exceptionally galling to read statements like the above after you've lectured my so patronisingly about passing speculation off as fact.

When Hutchinson's statement was doubted, the overwhelmingly likelihood is that he was cast in the role of an attention-seeker, as Packer and Violenia before him. It was extremely unlikely to have occurred to the police that one of them might have been the murderer.

The Star did not 'echo' the words of their contemporary, they distorted them.

And with that final piece of nonsense, I think that'll have to be you finished with these Hutchinson debates until at least after Christmas.

Wickerman
12-10-2013, 07:27 PM
And with that final piece of nonsense, I think that'll have to be you finished with these Hutchinson debates until at least after Christmas.

One can only hope that a brief respite will give you time to reflect.

caz
12-13-2013, 07:46 AM
Back to the scarlet snot rag...

Continued from the "Solved?" thread...

Hi Caz,

It is incredibly unlikely, as you seem to acknowledge, that the hanky was of distinctive enough appearance to tie it down to Hutchinson specifically. Unless he had his initials embroidered onto it, that really isn't an option. But if he'd convinced himself, however briefly, that he'd accidentally left it in the room and knew it couldn't have been recognised as his property, there was an obvious incentive in working it in to his fictional account in order to give the Astrakhan episode more validity.

Not really, Ben, no. Especially if you are claiming Hutch placed himself too far away from A Man and Kelly to make the red hanky episode anything but ludicrously implausible. If he was lying about the couple being there in the first place, he'd have been wiser to put himself much closer to them, but behind them, claiming they were too engrossed with each other to care who else was around. Drawing attention to his knowledge of anything the police may have found at the actual crime scene would have been a totally unnecessary risk. Not mentioning the hanky (if he thought he'd left it in the murder room) was risk free as long as it couldn't be identified as his own. If the police swallowed his whole 'ludicrously implausible' tale, they'd have swallowed it with or without the hanky thrown in. If not, he'd have had considerably more explaining to do, having admitted to knowing about such an item found at the scene.


I'd stress again that I don't believe for a moment that he actually did leave his red rag in the room, or that the police ever found one. Had it been otherwise, there would have been little chance of him escaping suspicion, and certainly no chance of the police dismissing him as a mere bogus witness who wasn't there.


So you see my point exactly then! ;) It would have done him very little good and potentially a lot of harm.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
12-13-2013, 08:23 AM
Hi Caz,

If Hutchinson was the killer and came forward with the intention of pulling the wool over the eyes of the police after becoming aware of a potentially incriminating link to the crime scene (in the form of Lewis), he was realistically expecting either to be accepted as a genuine witness, or to be exposed for what he really was. I doubt very much that he ever anticipated what actually happened, i.e. getting dismissed as an attention-seeker. If the handkerchief detail was thrown in because he feared he'd left it in the room, it was for the purpose of latching onto anything that might lend support for his story, in his mind. Liars will often embroider their stories with too much detail in the mistaken belief that it will lend weight to their credibility, rather than detracting from it. The Astrakhan man description included far too much superfluous detail, but Hutchinson may have thought he was increasing his chances of the police taking the bait, rather than incurring greater risks.

We shouldn't make the mistake of arguing that if person X was a liar, he would have lied better, therefore he didn't lie.

All the best,
Ben

caz
12-13-2013, 08:24 AM
He wouldn't have needed to read Lewis' account in the press, Jon.

He need only have registered the fact that Lewis was one of the witnesses due to appear at the inquest, which would have required, at the very most, joining the crowds thronging outside Shoreditch Town Hall. Alternatively, he may have read the "Mrs. Kennedy"'s account in the press and discovered from the Star's report that she was parrotting the evidence of a genuine witness, Sarah Lewis, who probably delivered her genuine her account to the inquest. Either way, rumour travelled like wildfire on those streets, so you can be assured that anything spoken at the public inquest because public knowledge very quickly indeed!

If Hutch was aware, before the murder was even committed, that Lewis was watching him loitering, and he knew who she was, he would also have known that she was likely to report her sighting of him when MJK was found ripped to shreds. And yet he carried on regardless, not apparently caring about her at that stage? Is this what you are suggesting? If not, I'm at a loss to understand how Hutch is meant to have 'registered' that a woman was going to put him near the scene, and who this woman was, either from a list of attending witnesses, or from seeing her face as she arrived (and hoping presumably that she wouldn't see his and recognise him). The only theoretical possibility that appears to make any sense is that he hung around as people left the inquest and managed to learn that his loitering had been observed and reported by Lewis, prompting him to come forward and put an innocent slant on it. Even so, he could hardly have found out every last thing she said, nor indeed anything the police may have asked her to hold back (as they had with Lawende), by the time he presented himself to Abberline for questioning. And make no mistake, he would be expecting to be questioned, if he only came forward because an inquest witness had already put him at the scene. Lewis's man would have been considered a person of interest to be found and eliminated, and a guilty Hutch must have breathed a huge sigh of relief when the police didn't appear to make any connection between the two similar tales of a man watching the court - Lewis's followed by his own admission.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
12-13-2013, 08:39 AM
If Hutch was aware, before the murder was even committed, that Lewis was watching him loitering, and he knew who she was, he would also have known that she was likely to report her sighting of him when MJK was found ripped to shreds. And yet he carried on regardless, not apparently caring about her at that stage? Is this what you are suggesting?

Not really, no.

At the time of the original sighting on Dorset Street, Hutchinson may have considered Lewis' passing more of a "near miss" - a woman who didn't pay him much attention, who probably didn't get a good look at his mug in the darkness, and under the broad brim of his wideawake hat. He have have cursed his misfortune at having to wait for this new entry into the Court to settle down to bed and sleep, but I'm not suggesting he necessarily considered her a particularly serious threat until he registered her presence outside Shoreditch Town Hall (pursuant to the reality that serial killers will closely monitor investigative progress, not just in the press), and concluded that she had seen more than he had given her credit for at the time of the original sighting. He would then have fully anticipated Lewis to divulge the "loitering man" detail, even if he wasn't able to hear her verbatim description (which wouldn't have taken long to do the rounds on the streets).

Another possibility is that he sensed immediately that Lewis would be able to recognise him, but couldn't risk inserting himself into the investigation before the inquest and claiming the identity (in effect) of the wideawake man, since this would have resulted in himself appearing at the inquest, with all the risk that entailed of being recognised by previous witnesses to previous ripper crimes.

All the best,
Ben

The Good Michael
12-13-2013, 08:39 AM
The only theoretical possibility that appears to make any sense is that he hung around as people left the inquest and managed to learn that his loitering had been observed and reported by Lewis,

yes, and without knowing that she hadn't fingered him. In this scenario, he would have overheard people talking and with only a sense of not wanting to be caught, didn't hear who Lewis had been talking about and only knee jerk reacted to this fear. Doesn't sound right to me.

Mike

Lechmere
12-13-2013, 08:40 AM
Yes - no one at the time made the connection between Lewis's sighting of a not tall but stout fellow and Hutchinson, a man of military appearance. I wonder why?

caz
12-13-2013, 08:43 AM
We'll we have to weigh the possiblity of the police asking Sarah Lewis if the man she'd seen was Hutchinson.
Or that she knew him.To me they would have. Common sense, Simple detective work. What came of it we do not know. Hutchinson dismissed as a witness was telling. Added to that no reports of anybody saying Hutchinson was a friend or an acquaintance of Kelly. If she knew Hutchinson and/or recognize him as the man at 2:30 AM he would have been a major witness.

I agree with this, Varqm. I don't see how the police could realistically have forgotten that Lewis had seen a man watching the court, as if waiting for someone to come out (thus making her a major witness), and simply decided that Hutch's account of doing exactly the same thing was either not credible or not suspicious. Surely anyone supposedly watching and waiting in those circumstances would have been of major interest to the police unless shown not to have been involved, or not even there. If the police came to believe that there was no Astrakhan Man in that room with Kelly after Blotchy had departed, they'd have wanted to know the reason for Hutch saying there was.


I grew up in a ghetto-like neighborhood near a market with many alleys and byways.Lots of people come and go.I did not know the majority of the people even across the street in those alleys . I lived there
for years. The weight goes to, that they did not know each other and Hutchinson would have not cared.


Again, I totally agree with you. This idea that everyone knew each other, by sight if not by name, in an area such as this, seems to come from nowhere - or when some theory requires it to have been the case.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
12-13-2013, 08:47 AM
Yes - no one at the time made the connection between Lewis's sighting of a not tall but stout fellow and Hutchinson, a man of military appearance. I wonder why?

Because they were so obviously interested in other things, Lechmere, and had countless other leads to pursue. Wideawake man was elipsed in terms of potential significance by the other, seemingly more "scary" man in her account: the Bethnal Green botherer with the pale face and the black bag. Remember that despite how terribly obvious the connection appears to be to us today, there is no evidence of anyone registering a connection until the mid 1990s.

Unless you're arguing that "not tall but stout" is incompatible with a "military appearance", which is just wrong, but we've thrashed that one to death, as you recall.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
12-13-2013, 08:53 AM
This idea that everyone knew each other, by sight if not by name, in an area such as this, seems to come from nowhere - or when some theory requires it to have been the case.

The argument has never been that Lewis and Hutchinson must have been acquainted with one another. It is possible, but not necessary. It has simply been suggested that in such a close-knit neighbourhood, there was the very real possibility of Hutchinson being recognised by Lewis as the man she she saw, and in that scenario, without having first nailed his colours to the helpful witness mast, he had no choice but to explain himself as a suspect.

And please see my response to Lechmere. There is nothing remotely unusual about the apparent failure to connect Hutchinson's account with Lewis', whereas it requires speculative leaps and the ever-convenient "lost report" to argue that the connection was first explored and subsequently eliminated. Had such events occurred, it is impossible that the press missed out on it or failed to report on it. Once they concluded that Astrakhan was a fabrication - and the likelihood is overwhelmingly that they did arrive at that conclusion - they evidently no longer considered that Hutchinson was there at all, just as Violenia wasn't really there when he claimed to be the last person to see Annie Chapman alive with a fictional suspect. The precedent had been set, which is why it was so tempting to lump Hutchinson into the same category as Violenia, Packer and others.

Regards,
Ben

caz
12-13-2013, 09:04 AM
Sarah Lewis saw only one couple on Dorset Street, and her evidence makes very clear the fact that they had nothing whatsoever to do with Miller's Court.

Hi Ben,

Where did Lewis say the couple went? How long did she watch them for? Why could they not have gone into the court when she was no longer there to see anybody? Yes, she saw a man (presumed to be Hutch) watching the court, but you can't use what Hutch said about his couple, if you are claiming they never existed.

I don't see why the couple could not have ended up in the court, unseen by Lewis, but seen by Hutch. There is no solid proof that the man Lewis saw was Hutch, and could not have been the man Hutch said he saw standing by the lodging house.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
12-13-2013, 09:13 AM
Hi Caz,

Where did Lewis say the couple went? How long did she watch them for? Why could they not have gone into the court when she was no longer there to see anybody?

They could well have done, but my point is that there is nothing in Sarah Lewis' evidence to suggest as much. We learn that the couple were "further along" Dorset Street, i.e. east of the Miller's Court entrance, and also that they "passed along", and while this could imply either that they were heading eastwards or that they were approaching Lewis from the east, the clear impression is that they walked straight past the Miller's Court entrance. The complete lack of interest exhibited by the police in this couple is another useful indicator that they did not consider them important to the investigation, and clearly not Kelly and her killer.

Hutchinson saw a man enter a lodging house, rather than loiter outside it. In those weather conditions, it would have churlish to hang about outside when the door was open!

All the best,
Ben

Lechmere
12-13-2013, 09:49 AM
Ben
Ah right then.
So the newspapers, virtually all of whom covered the Hutchinson story and spanned their coverage out over a couple of weeks, and who were eager for an extra slant on the story and who covered every little aspect, even going so far as inventing witnesses, or so we are told, or at least suspending their critical faculties and taking any old nonsense as verbatim, these same newspapers and journalists, all of them, were unenquiring enough to fail to make the connection between Lewis’s wide awake man and Hutchinson?

I doubt it somehow. If there was a connection to be made some one would have made it. That is why to me it is terribly obvious that the man Lewis saw was not Hutchinson and the police and everyone else at the time knew that. It was obvious to them and did not require a missing report to record the fact.
That is why Hutchinson did not have to be worried about Lewis’s testimony and why his appearance at the police station was unconnected to the inquest, which for all he knew had merely been adjourned and not concluded in one day.
By the way, need I say that Robert Paul didn’t voluntarily present himself to the police to appear at the inquest. He was dragged out of his house days after the murder.

You also seem to suggest that Hutchinson didn’t want to appear at the inquest in case he was recognised by one of the witnesses from a previous murder. Do you think such a witness would have been at Shoreditch Town Hall?
It would be just as likely that one of these witnesses might have been at Commercial Street Police Station when he turned up there – surely?
Or he may have been spotted by someone he knew when he did his tour of the area with a policeman looking for the A-man.
I won’t even introduce the folly of him doing this if he was really Joseph Fleming – what would the policeman say if a passer-by said – ‘wotcher Joe, wot you doing with a copper’ or would that have been ‘wotcher James…’

And as I have pointed out before, when Hutchinson gave his press interview in the Victoria Home he was mighty lucky an illustrator didn’t accompany the reporter.

By the by – wasn’t it so dark that colours couldn’t be seen and the gas lamps threw off such a dim glow that they were no help unless you were really up close?
So how would Lewis have been able to recognise Hutchinson from across the street anyway?
Was he standing right by a lamp outside Crossingham’s so he was illuminated?
Maybe he was, but that isn’t being very discrete is it? What a foolish stealth killer.
But what of Lewis? Was she stationary under a lamp for Hutchinson to recognise her? In the inky darkness how on earth would he have known who that fleeting figure was?

Ben
12-13-2013, 10:43 AM
Ah Lechmere,

I'm surprised you've found the time to attack alternative suspect theories given the tremendous weight of criticism you constantly receive for your much less popular and much more heavily censured "Crossmere" premise.

So the newspapers, virtually all of whom covered the Hutchinson story and spanned their coverage out over a couple of weeks, and who were eager for an extra slant on the story and who covered every little aspect, even going so far as inventing witnesses, or so we are told, or at least suspending their critical faculties and taking any old nonsense as verbatim, these same newspapers and journalists, all of them, were unenquiring enough to fail to make the connection between Lewis’s wide awake man and Hutchinson?

The penny is finally dropping, which is a tremendous relief. You have correctly recognised that the press were eager for an "extra slant on their story", but where you go wrong is your inexplicable failure to appreciate that the total absence of any reference to a Lewis-Hutchinson connection is even more conspicuous because of this; even more indicative that no such connection was ever registered. Your logical process goes awry somewhere, whereas it should be telling you that if - as we know to be the case - the press were anxious for any new lead, they would have reported on a Lewis-Hutchinson connection had a connection been made

It is utterly impossible to accept that the police silently spotted the Lewis-wideawake connection, silently investigated it, silently ruled it out, silently informed the press, who were then silent about it.

It's beyond ridiculous.

And as far as actual evidence goes for the dreadfully wrong theory, it really is a case of piss now or forever remain off the pot. In order for a theory like this to be sustainable, you need to provide evidence, not a string of "must haves" and silly mythical "lost reports" that said what you wanted them to have said before being conveniently burned by the Luftwaffe in WWII.

The complete absence of any reference to any Hutchinson-wideawake connection is an irrefutable indication that no connection was ever made, either by the police or the press.

Your hypocrisy in failing to apply your own weird logic with regard to what the police "must have" done disturbs me intensely. The reality that the police did not cross every "i" and cross every "t" is one that keeps your entire theory buoyant. Your implausible contention is that the police investigated the second person to discover Nichols' body but not the second, and it wholly relies on the police failing to do that which most consider obvious.

Hutchinson was almost certainly the man seen by Lewis.

You also seem to suggest that Hutchinson didn’t want to appear at the inquest in case he was recognised by one of the witnesses from a previous murder. Do you think such a witness would have been at Shoreditch Town Hall?
It would be just as likely that one of these witnesses might have been at Commercial Street Police Station when he turned up there – surely?

One of them was a public inquest, which drew immediate and sustained attention to anyone giving their evidence there, and which involved being scrutinised by a crowd of people, while the other was a police station - or rather a small interrogation room therein, with perhaps two or three others in attendance, and when the chance of encountering more than one witness from an earlier crime was slim.

I won’t even introduce the folly of him doing this if he was really Joseph Fleming – what would the policeman say if a passer-by said – ‘wotcher Joe, wot you doing with a copper’ or would that have been ‘wotcher James…’

Or, far more likely, they wouldn't have said "wotcher" anything, because they didn't know who he was or didn't know his name. Joseph Fleming had only recently arrived in the neighbourhood, and if he wasn't inclined to be sociable, he needn't have been known by anyone - either by his real name or by an alias. He was unlikely to have been spotted by a great many people during the small hours of the morning when on walkabout with police, and by that stage, he was already a helpful witness anyway. An identification by Lewis at that stage would only be met with confirmation by Hutchinson that "Yes, that was me, doing exactly as I said I was doing".

And as I have pointed out before, when Hutchinson gave his press interview in the Victoria Home he was mighty lucky an illustrator didn’t accompany the reporter.

No, he isn't.

Unless he had conspicuous marks, I doubt that a generic sketch of an average local was likely to prompt any squeak of recognition from Lawende and chums.

So how would Lewis have been able to recognise Hutchinson from across the street anyway?

She may not have been. We don't know. Hutchinson and Lewis would be in a better position to judge than we are today. He might have felt he was in a safe place and later reconsidered, either out of a genuine realisation that the lighting conditions and proximity were sufficient to enable such a recognition, or he might have been reacting out of irrational paranoia. I have never argued that the lighting conditions were so poor as to prevent people's faces being discerned.

All the best,
Ben

Lechmere
12-13-2013, 06:37 PM
Ben
I’m touched at hour concern about my ability to find time to comment on this thread.

I’m not exactly sure whether or not you were employing heavy irony when you said:

‘The complete absence of any reference to any Hutchinson-wideawake connection is an irrefutable indication that no connection was ever made, either by the police or the press.’

If not then you must think that the reason why there is no reference to the Hutchinson-Lewis connection at the time is because it was so obvious to everyone then that they were connected, so that it was not worth mentioning.
That would be a truly laughable and indeed pitiful explanation.

Police reports may be missing but we have all the press reports and speculation.
In the aftermath of the Kelly murder such speculation was at its peak.
The situation had moved on a pace from the first week of September when the scare stories started.

Incidentally, the police investigated the second person to find Nichol’s body because he did not come forward – unlike the first person. Also it seems likely that the second person was also investigated because the Chapman murder happened a hundred yards from his workplace.

On the topic of whether Hutchinson stood more chance of being recognised inside Shoreditch Town Hall (where it would be very unlikely for a previous witness who had seen him to be present), or inside Commercial Street Police Station – then I think it is rather obviously more likely that a previous witness may be at the Police Station – clarifying their statement or something similar.
Obviously it would be absurd to suggest that this previous witness would be inside the interview room where Hutchinson was interrogated. What a weird thing to suggest.
Surely you know that a Police Station does not just consist of a small interview room, and to get into the interview room Hutchinson would have to go to the main desk and wait around for a while before being seen?

So Flutchinson had spent his entire life in the East End just a mile or so from Spitalfields, and he was not concerned about bumping into anyone he knew while patrolling the popular markets with the local Constabulary, while adopting a false identity?

You seem to think that individual portrait sketches were all generic. You are grossly misinformed.
I would guess that Mrs Fleming might have recognised a sketch of her son. Lucky no such sketch appeared.

Ben
12-13-2013, 08:08 PM
If not then you must think that the reason why there is no reference to the Hutchinson-Lewis connection at the time is because it was so obvious to everyone then that they were connected, so that it was not worth mentioning.
That would be a truly laughable and indeed pitiful explanation.

Yes it is, Lechmere.

Fortunate is is, then, that I neither said nor implied any such thing.

I said that if the press had registered that there was a potential connection to be made between Hutchinson and Lewis' wideawake man, they would definitely have made reference to it it. The fact that no such reference appears anywhere in the press is an irrefutable indication that the Lewis-Hutchinson-wideawake connection was missed. There is no other plausible explanation. We noticed it over 100 years later because we're sitting on our bottoms and choosing esoteric aspects of the investigation to obsess over, secure in the knowledge that we will not be censured by the angry masses for failing to apprehend the real killer.

It annoys me that you'd rather expose a gaping hole in your Cross theory purely for the sake of pooh-poohing Hutchinson as a suspect, instead of acknowledging the reality of the situation - that the police may have overlooked certain details. For feck's sake, Lechmere, your controversial theory utterly relies on the latter being the case. You don't have a hope in hell of convincing anyone of Cross's guilt unless you can encourage people to accept that the police made oversights, i.e. in "failing" to consider Cross a suspect, in "failing" to recognise that grilling the second body discoverer (Paul) as a suspect renders obvious the necessity to grill the first body discoverer (Cross) as a suspect.

Your choices are as follows: accept the reality that neither police nor press registered the connection between the wideawake man and George Hutchinson's account, or piddle on your Crossmere theory by asserting that the police would never make such silly oversights. You either lose yourself a point for Crossmere or concede a point to those diabolically naughty "Hutchinsonians", but such is the dilemma that confronts those who pick fights with perceived suspect theorists when they're struggling to defend suspect theories of their own.

On the topic of whether Hutchinson stood more chance of being recognised inside Shoreditch Town Hall (where it would be very unlikely for a previous witness who had seen him to be present), or inside Commercial Street Police Station – then I think it is rather obviously more likely that a previous witness may be at the Police Station – clarifying their statement or something similar.

Look, if we're assessing "risk factor" in a rational manner here, we're dealing with an absolute no brainer - there is more "risk" attached to attending a heavily monitored public inquest, attended by many, and scrutinised by the world at large, in comparison to a surreptitious visit to a police station. Hutchinson was unlikely to have anticipated previous witnesses hanging around for spare cups of tea well over a month after the last murder, and he'd have been hideously unlucky to encounter one.

So Flutchinson had spent his entire life in the East End just a mile or so from Spitalfields, and he was not concerned about bumping into anyone he knew while patrolling the popular markets with the local Constabulary, while adopting a false identity?

I do wish you'd focus on the actual discussion rather than trying to introduce off-topic tangents, but if you're insistent on it, no, there is no reason to think that Joseph Fleming ever made the sort of long lasting friendships and acquaintances during his formative years in Bethnal Green, who would then be in a position to pop out of nowhere in Whitechapel during the small hours, and ruin any attempt at identity concealment that Fleming may have wished to resort to for whatever reason.

You seem to think that individual portrait sketches were all generic. You are grossly misinformed.

No, I'm not.

You are drastically overestimating the capabilities of the average Victorian crime sketch artist. Please be realistic. Are you seriously suggesting that their sketching prowess was so brilliant as to put the identity of the sketched individuals beyond question? Really? You really think the sketches of Barnett captured his oh-so-unique appearance, or are we seeing a bloke with a moustache? They'd have had a bash at age, weight, facial hair and colouring. That's about it.

Lechmere
12-14-2013, 02:04 AM
Ben
The reason why I'm unconcerned suggesting the police wouldnt have overlooked the Hutchinson-Lewis connection - if it existed - while suggesting the police didn't fully investigate Lechmere is that you are not comparing like with like.
The only point of contact is that both concern the police.
The circircumstances - the detail - is what is important. Which is why you repeated that garbled nonsense about the ppolice investigating man two but not man one while ignoring the obvious reasons why this was the case.
I have explanations to demonstrate why it is clear the police overlooked Lechmere. You merely have your vociferous protestations to back your case.
Your consistent endeavours try to bring Lechmere into discussions of your suspect tell me that you realise that you 100 year after the event arm chair theories connecting Lewis's man to Hutchinson are tenuous to say the least.

Ben
12-14-2013, 07:32 AM
Hi Lechmere,

“I have explanations to demonstrate why it is clear the police overlooked Lechmere”

And I have explanations to demonstrate why it is clear the police overlooked the Hutchinson-wideawake connection, and I think they’re much better than yours with regard to Cross. More to the point, there are a great many people who identify Hutchinson as the most likely candidate for Lewis’ wideawake man, but hardly any who support Cross as the ripper. I’m afraid it’s only predictable that you should resort to the “Oh, but mine is different because…” defense. It is indeed different – it’s much less convincing. I realise it can be regarded as a cheap shot to attack another member’s attempt – however bad – to undermine a suspect theory on the grounds that they're only doing so in order to advance the cause of their own suspect, but you tend to invite this criticism more than anyone because of your application of very obvious double standards and inconsistent reasoning.

Lechmere
12-14-2013, 08:13 AM
Ben
I'll defend the Lechmere theory on a Lechmere thread as other posters may get cross - although it has to be said that Lechmere invariably gets brought up off topic not by the growing number of Lechmere adherents but by vulnerable and floundering theorists who cannot make a case for their own suspect.
It goes alongside calls for polls and the equally pathetic 'I've got more mates than you have' retorts - oh you've already done that one.
I should be thankful you didn't used to be a serving policeman, nor started reading ripper books 50 years ago, as I am sure you would be employing these equally naff lines of argument to butress your obviously floundering case.

So humour me Ben, and possibly other readers, what is your explanation for why the police - and press - overlooked the 'obvious' Wideawake - Hutchinson connection - with evidence to support it I hope? It will be more than a little poor if we just get a stream of your unsupported thoughts.

Ben
12-14-2013, 08:27 AM
Lechmere,

You are constantly picking fights with real or imagined suspect theorists in an effort to champion Lechmere as the only suspect worth considering, and it always, always backfires. I'm not suggesting for a moment that having a suspect theory of your own abrogates your right to criticise others, but you're forever doing so in a way that exposes your double-standards, and you shouldn't get upset when this is pointed out. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword - or keyboard in your case. It is completely ridiculous for you to argue that the police would never "overlook" this or that where Hutchinson is concerned, when your controversial theory relies on the police making far more glaring "oversights".

So humour me Ben, and possibly other readers, what is your explanation for why the police - and press - overlooked the 'obvious' Wideawake - Hutchinson connection - with evidence to support it I hope.

No.

I've done so already numerous times, and we're discussing the "red handkerchief". Besides which, it is not incumbent on me to provide evidence for an absence. That's doing things completely backwards. If you have evidence for the connection being made, you should provide that.

Lechmere
12-14-2013, 10:54 AM
As I thought - complete redundancy.

Varqm
12-14-2013, 11:24 PM
Hi Caz,

Yes the premise that Lewis and Hutchinson knew each other and he got spooked
by her testimony is unfounded, based on what we know. It's all just made-up story.It's silly.The info that is there weighs overwhelmingly towards that they did not.

Varqm

Wickerman
12-15-2013, 06:04 AM
Hi Caz,

Yes the premise that Lewis and Hutchinson knew each other and he got spooked
by her testimony is unfounded, based on what we know. It's all just made-up story.It's silly.The info that is there weighs overwhelmingly towards that they did not.

Varqm

These kind of scenario's are the product of desperation.

Ben
12-15-2013, 08:16 AM
These kind (sic) of scenario's (sic) are the product of desperation.

Right you are, Jon, because I'm so desperate for the killer to have been a working class local who behaved as other serial killers have behaved in similar situations. I mean, just think of all the money I'd get if I turned out to be correct?! Oh, wait...

Yes the premise that Lewis and Hutchinson knew each other and he got spooked by her testimony is unfounded

It is not necessary, Varqm, for Hutchinson and Lewis to have known each order to deduce, logically and reasonably (at least reasonable to those who have taken the trouble to bone up a bit on serial killers), that it may have been Lewis' evidence that prompted Hutchinson to recognise himself therein and come forward. He may simply have feared that this stranger would recognise him again.

The info that is there weighs overwhelmingly towards that they did not.

Actually, unless you are in possession of "info" to the contrary, we simply have no information whatsoever with which to assess the likelihood or otherwise of Hutchinson and Lewis knowing each other. We simply don't know.

Wickerman
12-15-2013, 12:44 PM
Right you are, Jon, because I'm so desperate for the killer to have been a working class local who behaved as other serial killers have behaved in similar situations.

Under the false premise that serial killers, both ancient and modern, are the product of a cookie-cutter mentality.

Lechmere
12-15-2013, 02:25 PM
It can hardly be characterised as reasonable to suggest that Lewis’s minor testimony at the inquest prompted or spooked Hutchinson into appearing at the police station – when not a single person at the time connected Hutchinson to her wide-awake man. At a time in this sequence when every detail was poured over. And Hutchinson’s tale was heavily discussed.
Strange that.
Remember also that the budding stealth killer was standing under a light, whereas Lewis was scurrying along in the inky blackness of Dorset Street. Hutchinson must have had eyes of a cat to recognise her at the inquest.
After the inquest Hutchinson must have fairly hot footed it to Commercial Street with barely a moment to collect his thoughts. And yet he managed to recount a very similar tale to the press the next day. He must have had a good memory for hastily concocted lies.

Ben
12-15-2013, 03:34 PM
It can hardly be characterised as reasonable to suggest that Lewis’s minor testimony at the inquest prompted or spooked Hutchinson into appearing at the police station – when not a single person at the time connected Hutchinson to her wide-awake man. At a time in this sequence when every detail was poured over.

You completely overlook the fact that the general public hadn't even heard anything about the wideawake man until Sarah Lewis made reference to him at the inquest. The "spook" factor resided in the very public airing of that particular detail and the recognition that the unidentified man would quickly become a sought-after suspect. You're working oddly backwards with the evidence when you suggest that it was only a "minor" piece of evidence. With the fortunate benefit of hindsight, we can observe that it was relatively "minor", but Hutchinson was in no position to anticipate that outcome. Nor could he possibly have known, when he came forward so soon after the inquest, that nobody had (or would) connect Hutchinson to wideawake man.

Remember also that the budding stealth killer was standing under a light, whereas Lewis was scurrying along in the inky blackness of Dorset Street.

Nope.

No evidence for this at all.

You've completely misrepresented the scene.

There is no evidence at all that the wideawake man was standing under a lamp, and Dorset Street was described as comparatively well-lit in comparison to others. No "inky blackness" here, and certainly no need for Hutchinson to have had the "eyes of a cat" in order to see Lewis' face.

And yet he managed to recount a very similar tale to the press the next day. He must have had a good memory for hastily concocted lies.

That's only if the lie was plucked entirely from the ether, which most lies aren't. If, for instance, Hutchinson was recounting a personal encounter with Kelly (and simply placed a fictional suspect in his shoes), and the Astrakhan description was based on something or someone (some picture, even) he was accustomed to seeing, there was nothing remarkable about the supposed consistency. More worthy of note are the numerous points of contradiction and embellishments, including polar opposite descriptions.

But all this has been done to death in the 11,500 posts in the Hutchinson thread, and if might be better if you familiarized yourself with them before going over well-trodden ground.

Under the false premise that serial killers, both ancient and modern, are the product of a cookie-cutter mentality.

No, Jon.

Under the correct premise that serial killers, both ancient and modern, will often share the same or similar behavioural traits.

Varqm
12-15-2013, 05:54 PM
Hi,

What I mean by they knew each other is by any reason at at all either through acquaintances/friends,hearing through them,a sighting in a bar/street or any shape or form.

About the info, first if Sarah Lewis just said maybe I recognize Hutchinson it would be important.
There should be a note or two either through newspapers or memoirs or police report. They may have even connect Hutchinson and the man seen by Lewis at 2:30 AM. There is none.
The newspapers/police searched out Kelly's past acquaintances, Mrs Buki, Fleming, Mrs Mcarthy, even may be relatives/history in Ireland , so more likely - it's in the neighborhood of the murder site - they would have found out if Hutchinson and Kelly knew each other or even Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson.There is no report.
So the weight goes overwhelmingly that Lewis and Hutchinson were total strangers. Nobody got spooked. It's made-up.

Ben
12-15-2013, 06:44 PM
Hi Varqm,

Again, try to look past the suggestion that Lewis must have known Hutchinson. I think we've established that we have no evidence either way. No "weight goes overwhelmingly" to anything. Just no evidence either way. If there is any truth to Hutchinson's claim to have known Kelly for three years, it is possible that he knew Lewis mildly from her visits to the Court, assuming the 9th wasn't her first.

But the point is that Hutchinson didn't need to have been acquainted with Lewis to have feared the possibility of being recognised by her again. The fact that no such recognition was ever made (and no acknowledgement that Hutchinson was probably the man she saw either) does not negate the proposed rationale in coming forward. For all he knew at 6.00pm on the 12th November, shortly after the closure of the inquest and the release of its witness evidence, that recognition had a very real chance of happening in the near future.

The newspapers/police searched out Kelly's past acquaintances, Mrs Buki, Fleming, Mrs Mcarthy, even may be relatives/history in Ireland

Not Fleming they didn't, no.

They only heard about him.

they would have found out if Hutchinson and Kelly knew each other or even Sarah Lewis and Hutchinson.There is no report.

No, there never is, is there...

Realistically, though, there is no evidence that any of these issued were resolved. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have conducted investigations, but we can't always expect those investigations to bear fruit.

Regards,
Ben

Varqm
12-15-2013, 10:41 PM
Hi Ben,

The thought that Hutchinson was spooked has to be based on something that shows they, however distant - even through 3rd or 4th party - that they crossed each other's lives at the very least. Otherwise there was no reason to get spooked. Maybe, otherwise the ripper would have acted like he did when Lawende or Long passed across him if he was the 2:30 am guy. The fact is there is none.

We can infer from the facts that we know. Those people back then were not stupid for a lack of a better word. They would have sized up the the situation and round up as much story as they could have gotten. They had access on the people in Dorset St.,the pubs, the lodging house were Hutchinson lived, Kelly's friends, Barnett, maybe also in Ireland. For a sensational event and a big murder case, the absence of it, not even a rumor, much more likely means there was none to have because they did not have a connection at all .This is the bigger thing and the first thing before imagining they might have or Hutchinson might have thought this and that. And it's just the way it is people don't know most of their neighbours in busy crowded areas.

But out of the blue, that little chance, you could imagine that maybe they did .That will never go away I understand. And besides you mention historical precedence.

Varqm

Ben
12-16-2013, 07:07 AM
Hi Varqm,

The thought that Hutchinson was spooked has to be based on something that shows they, however distant - even through 3rd or 4th party - that they crossed each other's lives at the very least.

With respect, no, it doesn't.

Hutchinson and Lewis could have been complete strangers to each other, his concern being that she would recognise him subsequently. Either that or Lewis' superficially vague and brief description was much fuller in reality, and had been suppressed at the Kelly inquest, just as Lawende's had been at the Eddowes' inquest. We, of course, know that wasn't the case, but Hutchinson had no such luxury of knowledge on the 12th November.

You suggest he would have come forward "earlier" and admitted to being Lawende's suspect if he was inclined towards that form of self-preservation, but this possibility was not available to him, even if he was inclined to come forward at that time. This man was seen by the Jewish trio ten minutes before the discovery of the victim's body. How could he have said, "Yes, that was me talking to Eddowes ten minutes before the discovery of her body, but Mr. Astrakhan must have snuck in after I left, and inveigled, dispatched and mutilated her at lightening speed"..? without being suspected immediately?

In the case of Elizabeth Long, it was a rear sighting and she had mentioned a "foreigner" (one wonders how, from a rear sighting), so no problem there for Hutchinson.

For a sensational event and a big murder case, the absence of it, not even a rumor, much more likely means there was none to have because they did not have a connection at all

The fact that there was "not even a rumour" tells us that the connection was never made between Hutchinson and Lewis. It wasn't discreetly noticed, discreetly investigated, and discreetly ruled out - that was simply not possible, and the press, who as you correctly observe, would "round up as much story as they could have gotten", made no mention of Hutchinson possibly being Lewis man. If they noticed it, they would definitely have mentioned it, way in advance of the police investigating it and ruling it out.

Regards,
Ben

caz
12-16-2013, 07:07 AM
Hutchinson saw a man enter a lodging house, rather than loiter outside it. In those weather conditions, it would have churlish to hang about outside when the door was open!

Ah, so you believe Hutchinson now, Ben? ;)

Why could this man not have been doing pretty much what you claim Hutch was doing, ie loitering in exactly 'those weather conditions' for an opportunity to pop across unseen into Miller's Court and murder MJK in her room?

And do learn what 'churlish' means. It means rude, surly or ungracious, not foolish or needless.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
12-16-2013, 07:25 AM
Why could this man not have been doing pretty much what you claim Hutch was doing, ie loitering in exactly 'those weather conditions' for an opportunity to pop across unseen into Miller's Court and murder MJK in her room?

Because Hutchinson said nothing about the man "loitering". He said he saw him enter a lodging house, i.e. immediately after walking on foot from wherever he'd been. That's assuming this detail wasn't just another invention.

And do try to understand that “churlish” can also mean miserly, which is a synonym of “stingy” and “ungenerous” – my point being that it would have been “ungenerous” to his own situation to have avoided taking full advantage of the opportunity presented by an open door to what was presumably his own lodging house.

Regards,
Ben

caz
12-16-2013, 07:56 AM
That's a horrible use of churlish, though, Ben. "Ungenerous to his own situation"? Are you serious? I know misers can be as mean with themselves as with other people, but I have never seen "churlish" used to describe one's treatment of oneself.

My Collins Thesaurus gives the following definitions, in this order and format:

churlish = rude, harsh, vulgar, sullen, surly, morose, brusque, uncouth, impolite, loutish, oafish, uncivil, unmannerly. Opposite: polite.

Nothing there about being "miserly", either with oneself or with others.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-16-2013, 08:04 AM
Because Hutchinson said nothing about the man "loitering". He said he saw him enter a lodging house, i.e. immediately after walking on foot from wherever he'd been. That's assuming this detail wasn't just another invention.

Well you'd know more about invention than some of us, Ben. ;)

Assuming this detail was actually true, what was to stop this man, or any other for that matter, coming out of the lodging house again when Hutch was no longer in a position to see? There would have been other men on the streets besides Hutch (assuming he was there at all that night), any of whom could have done the deed after 3am, when Hutch - by his own admission - was no longer hanging around to be observed or to do any observing.

Love,

Caz
X

The Good Michael
12-16-2013, 08:18 AM
Caz,

You were being a bit of a churlish lout there with Ben. Hope I used it correctly.

Mike

caz
12-16-2013, 08:26 AM
Hutchinson and Lewis could have been complete strangers to each other, his concern being that she would recognise him subsequently. Either that or Lewis' superficially vague and brief description was much fuller in reality, and had been suppressed at the Kelly inquest, just as Lawende's had been at the Eddowes' inquest. We, of course, know that wasn't the case, but Hutchinson had no such luxury of knowledge on the 12th November.

Can you not see how this makes a nonsense of your argument that Hutch came forward knowing what Lewis had said at the inquest about him and therefore wanting to put someone else - Astrakhan Man - in the room with MJK to explain his own loitering near the scene? He didn't know, and he couldn't have known the extent of her sighting or her police statement - in which case there would even have been a possibility that she had looked out of a window later to see the same man - Hutch - entering the room, as he must have done if he was the murderer.


How could he have said, "Yes, that was me talking to Eddowes ten minutes before the discovery of her body, but Mr. Astrakhan must have snuck in after I left, and inveigled, dispatched and mutilated her at lightening speed"..? without being suspected immediately?


Ooh, I don't know. In much the same way as he said: "I watched Mr. Astrakhan and Kelly disappear into her room, and he was still in there 45 minutes later, after which I wandered about all night", without knowing what Lewis may have been able to tell the police to the contrary, and was apparently never suspected at all, even after his whole story was 'discredited', supposedly because the police came to believe Mr. A was a figment of his imagination?

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
12-16-2013, 08:31 AM
That's a horrible use of churlish, though, Ben.

According to you perhaps, Caz, but not according to the actual historical definition of the word and its origin: "churl", - from which we get the names Charles and Carl. Originally, a "churl" referred simply to "a man", but then later his status became more defined and the expression applied only to "peasants" or those with low social standing. A "churl" also had the negative personality attributes; either miserly (or n1ggardly) or rude and boorish.

The word "churlish" developed from this, and meant behaving as a churl would.

If you've never before heard that churlish can - and still does - mean "miserly", I'd be inclined to look beyond Collins if I were you. Equally, if you acknowledge that one is capable of being miserly to oneself, that shouldn't be problematic to you either.

It is often helpful to have a passing familiarity with the origin of words in order to understand their correct application, and while I'm glad of the opportunity to help out here, I think that's probably enough deviation from the "red handkerchief" topic if you don't mind. ;)

Best regards,
Ben

Sally
12-16-2013, 08:52 AM
Damn it Ben, you beat me to it :(

Back to the red handkerchief it is then.

Ben
12-16-2013, 08:56 AM
Well you'd know more about invention than some of us, Ben.

Ooh I dunno, Caz, conjuring up non-existent problems with a perfectly simply premise, borne out by examples of known serial killer behaviour, ought to qualify as "invention" in my book. ;) ;)

Assuming this detail was actually true, what was to stop this man, or any other for that matter, coming out of the lodging house again when Hutch was no longer in a position to see?

I'm not suggesting there was anything to "stop" him. I'm simply wondering why it should be considered a remotely tempting suggestion when we have no evidence that the man did any such thing, and no evidence beyond Hutchinson's discredited say-so that the man even existed. Added to which, there is no reason to think that Hutchinson saw the man enter Crossingham's lodging house. It could just as easily have been one of the buildings further down the street and away from Miller's Court (and away, thus, from any real significance). I'm not sure why you think this man makes for a more suspicious character than the man loitering outside Crossingham's, seemingly fixated on Miller's Court, and who - unless we accept striking "coincidence" as a palatable explanation - should have been Hutchinson.

He didn't know, and he couldn't have known the extent of her sighting or her police statement - in which case there would even have been a possibility that she had looked out of a window later to see the same man...

Please let's not have this "window" nonsense again.

Hutchinson would not have been remotely concerned about neighbours staring out of their windows in the very small hours of the morning (for what possible reason?). Even if he harboured the slightest doubt in that regard, he could have assuaged his paranoia by peering into the windows themselves and reassuring herself that nobody was star-gazing at that time. He couldn't rule out the possibility that he'd been seen entering the court itself (by potential meddlers on Dorset Street), which may he explain why he added the detail of entering the court itself when speaking to the press.

The only source of concern Lewis realistically presented was the extent of her 2:30 sighting on Dorset Street, which may have included a more detailed and thorough description than she provided at the inquest (in response to a prior request to withhold the detail), or the ability to recognise the man again. If Hutchinson was responsible, the later time of death could be explained by a perceived necessity on his part to allow Lewis time to settle down to bed and sleep. If he'd ventured into the Court too soon after Lewis disappeared into, then there was a greater risk of being seen out of the window by a laundress snuggling into her PJs and preparing a hot water bottle.

Regards,
Ben

caz
12-16-2013, 08:58 AM
At the time of the original sighting on Dorset Street, Hutchinson may have considered Lewis' passing more of a "near miss" - a woman who didn't pay him much attention, who probably didn't get a good look at his mug in the darkness, and under the broad brim of his wideawake hat. He have have cursed his misfortune at having to wait for this new entry into the Court to settle down to bed and sleep, but I'm not suggesting he necessarily considered her a particularly serious threat until he registered her presence outside Shoreditch Town Hall (pursuant to the reality that serial killers will closely monitor investigative progress, not just in the press), and concluded that she had seen more than he had given her credit for at the time of the original sighting. He would then have fully anticipated Lewis to divulge the "loitering man" detail, even if he wasn't able to hear her verbatim description (which wouldn't have taken long to do the rounds on the streets).

I'm still left wondering about the logistics of Hutch going to the Town Hall (presumably without a wideawake hat, but possibly wearing a false beard) to check out the witnesses, clocking Lewis and 'registering' her as definitely (or do you mean possibly?) someone who had seen him hanging around the court and had just given evidence to this effect, then hot-footing it to the cop shop, before he could reasonably have found out everything she said, and without having the foggiest idea what she may have been asked to hold back.

Added to which, your red hanky argument was that Hutch would have mentioned it to lend some validity to his Astrakhan story, if he thought he might have left it in the room. So would he not, using the same argument, have mentioned seeing Lewis while he was waiting for Mr. A to come out, thus lending even more support to his account? After all, your theory is that he only came forward because he assumed the police - and Lewis - would be on the lookout for him as a direct result of her inquest testimony.

Love,

Caz
X

Observer
12-16-2013, 09:06 AM
Ooh, I don't know. In much the same way as he said: "I watched Mr. Astrakhan and Kelly disappear into her room, and he was still in there 45 minutes later, after which I wandered about all night", without knowing what Lewis may have been able to tell the police to the contrary, and was apparently never suspected at all, even after his whole story was 'discredited', supposedly because the police came to believe Mr. A was a figment of his imagination?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

To be fair to the good people who frequent this forum, there are only a very very few silly people who believe that Hutchinson would not have been investigated (as to his possible involvement in the murder of Mary Kelly) after his dealings with Inspector Abberline and friends.

Regards

Observer

caz
12-16-2013, 09:20 AM
According to you perhaps, Caz, but not according to the actual historical definition of the word and its origin: "churl", - from which we get the names Charles and Carl. Originally, a "churl" referred simply to "a man", but then later his status became more defined and the expression applied only to "peasants" or those with low social standing. A "churl" also had the negative personality attributes; either miserly (or n1ggardly) or rude and boorish.

The word "churlish" developed from this, and meant behaving as a churl would.

If you've never before heard that churlish can - and still does - mean "miserly", I'd be inclined to look beyond Collins if I were you. Equally, if you acknowledge that one is capable of being miserly to oneself, that shouldn't be problematic to you either.

It is often helpful to have a passing familiarity with the origin of words in order to understand their correct application, and while I'm glad of the opportunity to help out here, I think that's probably enough deviation from the "red handkerchief" topic if you don't mind. ;)

Best regards,
Ben

Yes, 'negative' personality attributes, ie to be churlish implies unpleasant behaviour, so while it could include being mean or miserly towards others, it doesn't work well in the context of self denial, as in standing out in the rain when there is shelter to be had.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-16-2013, 09:34 AM
Please let's not have this "window" nonsense again.

Yes, Ben, I can see why you must stop this at all costs. ;)

Hutchinson would not have been remotely concerned about neighbours staring out of their windows in the very small hours of the morning (for what possible reason?).

Er, cries of murder? Sleeplessness? I think we have evidence of both such things afflicting the near 'neighbours' that very night.


Even if he harboured the slightest doubt in that regard, he could have assuaged his paranoia by peering into the windows themselves and reassuring herself that nobody was star-gazing at that time.


Yeah, like he'd have been able to see if anyone had been peering out of a nearby window, if they had no candles or fire burning at the time and it was pitch dark inside. They'd have seen more looking out than Hutch could have seen looking in.


He couldn't rule out the possibility that he'd been seen entering the court itself (by potential meddlers on Dorset Street), which may he explain why he added the detail of entering the court itself when speaking to the press.

So how was he ruling out the possibility that he'd been seen leaving the court, considerably later than his claim of 3am - unless he really did leave at 3 and had nothing to hide?

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
12-16-2013, 09:45 AM
Hi again, Caz,

Firstly, it was reported that there were a great many people in attendance at the Shoreditch Town Hall, so I think Hutchinson could have afforded to leave his false beard at home. Secondly, it was only reasonable for Hutchinson to have assumed the worst after registering the fact that Lewis was due to appear as a witness. Unless he was aware of her Wednesday episode involving the pale-faced man with the black bag, he had ever reason to fear that the loitering 2:30 man would be the focal point of her testimony.

So would he not, using the same argument, have mentioned seeing Lewis while he was waiting for Mr. A to come out, thus lending even more support to his account?

It's not quite the same argument. Unlike the red hanky detail, a reference to Lewis may have rendered it too obvious to the police that it was her evidence that forced his hand. There was an obvious incentive to conceal any fear on his part that the police "would be on the lookout for him as a direct result of her inquest testimony". It was thus in his interests to at least trivilialise the fact that a woman had walked passed him and into the court.

All the best,
Ben

caz
12-16-2013, 09:49 AM
Hi Caz

To be fair to the good people who frequent this forum, there are only a very very few silly people who believe that Hutchinson would not have been investigated (as to his possible involvement in the murder of Mary Kelly) after his dealings with Inspector Abberline and friends.

Regards

Observer

Indeed, Observer.

At the very least, putting someone in that room with the murder victim would have left Hutch looking for all the world like a potential accomplice/lookout who was protecting the real murderer, once the police had reason to drop Astrakhan Man from their enquiries.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-16-2013, 09:58 AM
Hi again, Caz,

Firstly, it was reported that there were a great many people in attendance at the Shoreditch Town Hall, so I think Hutchinson could have afforded to leave his false beard at home.

But he is meant to have been worried that Lewis would recognise him again! Make up your mind, Ben.

Secondly, it was only reasonable for Hutchinson to have assumed the worst after registering the fact that Lewis was due to appear as a witness.

Sorry, but you still haven't explained how he would have registered the fact that Lewis was 'due' to appear (by name or by face?) or that this was the same woman who had spotted him loitering.

And that's if he even noticed a woman watching him watching the court.

Was he hanging around as all the inquest witnesses arrived and left? He should have had two false beards in that case, in different colours. :)

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
12-16-2013, 10:01 AM
Er, cries of murder? Sleeplessness? I think we have evidence of both such things afflicting the near 'neighbours' that very night.

Yes, but after the event.

It was only established after the release of the inquest details that people were hearing "cries of murder" and were afflicted by sleeplessness. Unless you're arguing that Hutchinson was psychic and could therefore have anticipated this, the whole "why wasn't Hutchinson scared about being looking out of the window?" protest falls a bit flat. It was extremely unlikely that anyone was gazing out of their window at the fascinating internal walls of Miller's Court at 3:30am, and Hutchinson would have been aware of this extreme likelihood, realistically speaking.

Yeah, like he'd have been able to see if anyone had been peering out of a nearby window

Actually, there was a lamp right outside the only windows that reasonably offered a good potential sighting of anyone entering room #13.

So how was he ruling out the possibility that he'd been seen leaving the court, considerably later than his claim of 3am - unless he really did leave at 3 and had nothing to hide?

They would depend when he left.

If he snuck out when Dorset Street was busy with market workers and horses, not such a huge problem.

Yes, 'negative' personality attributes, ie to be churlish implies unpleasant behaviour, so while it could include being mean or miserly towards others, it doesn't work well in the context of self denial, as in standing out in the rain when there is shelter to be had.

Whereas I contend it does, at least according to the proven-correct usage of the word as outlined in the dictionary or thesaurus. You can argue that it might be unusual to describe a person as being miserly to his or her self, but you can't call it wrong.

Cheers,
Ben

Ben
12-16-2013, 10:13 AM
At the very least, putting someone in that room with the murder victim would have left Hutch looking for all the world like a potential accomplice/lookout who was protecting the real murderer, once the police had reason to drop Astrakhan Man from their enquiries.

Is that what Emmanuel Violeina looked like when he was simply cast aside as an attention-seeker? A potential accomplice who approached the police station requesting an interview, risking his neck to bail out his old mate Jack the Ripper? Was Packer, who was proven to have been at the Stride crime scene when the murder took place? Nope, they were simply disregarded as publicity-seekers, and in Violenia's case, they also disregarded his claim to have been there at all. The same evidently occurred with Hutchinson, so as much as some - well, a tiny few who are bothered about doing so, actually - might seek to discard Hutchinson as a person of interest on the grounds of imaginary police suspicions resulting in an imaginary absolving of those suspicions, there just isn't the evidence to justify it.

But he is meant to have been worried that Lewis would recognise him again!

Not in a vast crowd that threatened to overwhelm the coronor's office, such was its size. That is quite apart from the suggestion that he may have been seen by her alone on the uncrowded streets again.

Sorry, but you still haven't explained how he would have registered the fact that Lewis was 'due' to appear (by name or by face?) or that this was the same woman who had spotted him loitering.

The lighting in Dorset Street was sufficient for Hutchinson to have registered a face, and it would not have taken the Paparazzi to observe which women were being ushered into the court room to be used as witnesses. It was very unlikely that she could have clocked a a face in the crowd - i.e. one not being taken into the court - thus removing the need for Hutchinson to have worn coloured false beards.

Regards,
Ben

Ben
12-16-2013, 10:24 AM
To be fair to the good people who frequent this forum, there are only a very very few silly people who believe that Hutchinson would not have been investigated

Personal abuse, Observer.

Not good.

You've come along way from your probable former username "Clem" or "The Cleminator" when you threatened to track down my location and make me "piss blood" (lovely!), but while dismissing those who disagree with you as "silly people" is tame by comparison, it still takes us back to those terrible old days.

But you need to provide evidence for these unpleasant and antagonistic assertions. Do you have any evidence at all that Hutchinson was suspected? No, you don't. Do you have any evidence at all that Hutchinson was dismissed as innocent after being suspected? No, you don't. Do we know what happened to witnesses who were suspected of lying despite also claiming to have been at the crime scene when the crime occurred?. Yes, we do. They were discarded as attention-seekers and not investigated as suspects. To ignore all this, and still claim Hutchinson "must" have been grilled as a suspect is, well, silly.

Abby Normal
12-16-2013, 10:54 AM
As this murder series progressed more and more witnesses came forward with descriptions of supects and the ripper may have been feeling the heat. if it was hutch he may have felt the need to come forward, especially if he thought he may have been recognized.

It really only is as simple as that.

The history of serial killers is riddled with killers who were already known to police, insert themselves into the investigation or were formerly witnesses. Its not unreasonable to think that Hutch as the ripper did the same.

Observer
12-16-2013, 11:46 AM
Hahaha. And again he accuses me of being this Clem individual. Shame on you.

Personal abuse? You accuse me of personal abuse? Well I never, as the pot said to the kettle. How many times have you been suspended from this Forum?

Take a look at this


It's not quite the same argument. Unlike the red hanky detail, a reference to Lewis may have rendered it too obvious to the police that it was her evidence that forced his hand.


Never! Never in the entire World! The LVP using their common sense, and putting two and two together! And this without any knowledge of the devious tricks of the modern serial killer. Who would have thought it?

Regarding Violenia and Packer. As you imply Violenia was a nut, the police I suspect did not believe he was even at the scene. Packer had an unshakable alibi for the murder of Liz Stride, he being in his house with two other people during the time in which Liz Stride was murdered. So no, not really comparable with Hutchinson.

Hutchinson however, well different kettle of fish. Alone, without an alibi, seen stood opposite Mary Kelly's room, indeed seen peering up the very Court in which she lived, on the night of her murder, at the appropriate time. Well what can one say.

But it gets better.

On top of all this he goes to the police three days after the event, after the inquest has ended, and tells a **** and bull story, about seeing Mary Kelly with an obviously fictitious character, evidence which is eventually considered greatly reduced. This revelation of course, this discrediting of Hutchinson, would undoubtedly have left him high and dry. In effect, he is now the last person to have been seen in the vicinity of the Mary Kelly crime scene. And not only observed, but observed taking an active interest in the Court. In Sarah Lewis's opinion.

" The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one."

As Caz has implied behaving for all the world as if he were an accomplice at least.

So, 125 years later Ben, with good reason I must say, suspects Hutchinson of being JTR. The LVP? Not a clue. Dream on.

Michael W Richards
12-16-2013, 03:37 PM
There is no need for Hutchinson to have attended the Inquest, clandestinely or otherwise. He would have been aware that a witness spotted someone with a Wideawake Hat and have an approximate time for that sighting....things he could use if he felt he needed to come forward to provide a story that suggests he was that man. Im wondering though.....why then would he feel the need to come forward and place himself in precarious shoes at all? If he didnt attend the Inquest he would have no issues with any recognition issues on the part of Sarah Lewis, she didnt identify the man as someone she knew or could recognize again anyway. Why not stay out of it entirely..since the Inquest was over and it was after all, 4 days after the fact. The criminal he says he saw could have sailed away in 4 days...he certainly doesnt offer something that has immediate potential...its 4 days old. The guy could be anywhere, and wearing anything but the items George identifies the man wearing.

So why come forward at all? Fear he might be called into a lineup that Sarah Lewis views?...not likely after the Inquest. Trying to get some limelight? Possibly. Trying to implicate someone in Marys murder...whether he actually was there and saw her, or not? Possibly.

The distinct similarities in the description of the man he says he saw matches someone that Abberline would be familiar with, and he would have reason to suspect was active in some criminal scheme. There is evidence that suggests The Home Office/Special Branch considered Kellys murder may have been committed by Irish Self Rule factions. Which would then make that ID quite plausible. Royal Irish Constabularies and Members of Parliament, recently re-convened, visited that site on the same morning early the week after the murder.

I wonder whether the fact Abberline seems to believe George is related to a suspect description that Abberline would recognize? One that would fit some theories about the parties responsible.

Cheers

Lechmere
12-16-2013, 07:21 PM
Oh dear
The amusing inability to gracefully concede the incorrect usage of ‘churlish’ is of a piece with the way obtuse issues are defended to these hilt on these Hutchinson threads.

caz
12-18-2013, 09:35 AM
Personal abuse, Observer.

Not good.

You've come along way from your probable former username "Clem" or "The Cleminator" when you threatened to track down my location and make me "piss blood" (lovely!), but while dismissing those who disagree with you as "silly people" is tame by comparison, it still takes us back to those terrible old days.

(Major Rule) '5. Don't create multiple user accounts. If you suspect someone is a sock puppet, PM the administrator. Do not make a public accusation on the boards.'

caz
12-18-2013, 10:14 AM
It was only established after the release of the inquest details that people were hearing "cries of murder" and were afflicted by sleeplessness. Unless you're arguing that Hutchinson was psychic and could therefore have anticipated this, the whole "why wasn't Hutchinson scared about being looking out of the window?" protest falls a bit flat. It was extremely unlikely that anyone was gazing out of their window at the fascinating internal walls of Miller's Court at 3:30am, and Hutchinson would have been aware of this extreme likelihood, realistically speaking.

Hi Ben,

It's irrelevant when it was established in this instance that (allegedly commonplace) cries of murder had been heard that night and at least one case of insomnia reported. I was merely using these examples to demonstrate that when Hutch came forward he would not have needed to be remotely psychic to fear that anyone could have been awake and heard noises that brought them to their window, or been woken by those noises, and therefore anyone could have seen him breaking into Kelly's room or leaving it - but only of course if he did those things.

If he did, he presumably heard the same cries of murder that others heard, and he'd have been hard pressed to break into that room and launch into the attack without making the slightest sound, especially while checking every nearby window for signs of anyone peering out from the darkness within.


Actually, there was a lamp right outside the only windows that reasonably offered a good potential sighting of anyone entering room #13.


But an outside lamp wouldn't have helped Hutch see inside a darkened room, where someone could have peeped out from behind a dark curtain to investigate any nocturnal comings and goings.


If he snuck out when Dorset Street was busy with market workers and horses, not such a huge problem.


I do fear you are missing the point. It's not that anyone did see the ripper breaking into or leaving the room afterwards. It's the fact that anyone could have done, and he would not have known about it either way - even after the inquest, as any such witness testimony could have been held back to give the murderer a false sense of security. It's what Hutch didn't know, and couldn't know, that should have made him much more wary of showing his face again if he was the killer.

Love,

Caz
X

Bridewell
12-18-2013, 10:48 AM
If you'd prefer to accept that the killer was a well-dressed, ostentatious, sinister-looking Jew who would stand out a mile anywhere, as opposed to an ordinary local who realised he'd been seen, and lied about his reasons for being there, be my guest, but I know where my study of serial killers leads me, given the two options.

Ben,

Apologies for the late reply - only just seen this.

My preference is to keep my options open. We know that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson and found his story credible. That is what he said. Is it possible that Abberline subsequently changed his mind? Yes, but that is an unknown. Could Hutchinson have killed MJK? Yes. Could he have been just an attention seeker? Yes. Has anyone ever proved that he was anything other than what he said he was? No.

There must be doubts about Hutchinson's truthfulness but that's all they are - doubts, not certainties.

caz
12-19-2013, 02:03 AM
Hi Ben,

I notice you still haven't explained how Hutch would have registered the fact that Lewis was among the large crowd of people at the Town Hall, and would be giving evidence at the inquest. Did he register the fact by seeing and recognising her face (while hiding his own in case she recognised his)? Did he have a psychic moment and connect the face with the name Lewis? Or what exactly? Did he merely hang around afterwards and happen to hear that a woman named Lewis had described a suspicious character who was watching the court, and realise she had been describing him - the ripper himself?

Again, was he hanging around as all the inquest witnesses arrived and left?

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-19-2013, 02:12 AM
Oh dear
The amusing inability to gracefully concede the incorrect usage of ‘churlish’ is of a piece with the way obtuse issues are defended to these hilt on these Hutchinson threads.

Indeed, Lech.

Ben can never, ever, be 'wrong'. But at least he admits to having an 'unusual' turn of phrase. I'd call it unique myself.

How 'mean', 'miserly' and 'stingy' of anyone to stand in the rain when they could be nice and dry indoors. :lol:

And yes, I'm being churlish and childish, while waiting for Ben to finally address my inquest question.

Love,

Caz
X

Observer
12-19-2013, 05:58 AM
Indeed, Lech.

Ben can never, ever, be 'wrong'. But at least he admits to having an 'unusual' turn of phrase. I'd call it unique myself.


Hi Caz

This is true. It is the reason that I referred to the notion that the police did not investigate Hutchinson as a possible suspect or accomplice in the Mary Kelly murder as silly. Of course I chose my words carefully ( for me) so as not to offend, but it seems Ben took it to heart, and for this I apologise. Ben is an intelligent individual, but as you say, once he sets out his stall he'll not move an inch, much the same as I in truth. None of us like being corrected, it's a part of what we are, human beings, it's just the way it is.

Regards

Observer

Patrick S
12-19-2013, 07:37 AM
Funny. I was just reading about Hutchinson last night (Sugden) and found him intriguing as a witness. Personally, I put a lot of stock in the fact that Abberline stated outright that he found him to be truthful. He believed his version of events. So let's follow this a bit.......

If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was telling the truth. Taking a quick detour back to Mitre Square - if we believe Levy about the red handkerchief worn about the man's neck, then the red handkerchief is a regular part of this person's attire. When it's chilly, he puts on his red hanky. Red hankys are useful for, say, wiping away blood. Blood is red after all and doesn't show up quite as well on a red hanky! Also, it keeps him warm, and it looks sharp. Returning to Miller's Court. Hutchinson sees the man give his red hanky to Kelly. They disappear inside number 13. It stands to reason that if this guy was JtR then he took his hanky back. It's handy for hiding blood. It's functional in that it keep him from catching a chill, and it's obviously a prized accessory!

Tecs
12-19-2013, 08:06 AM
Funny. I was just reading about Hutchinson last night (Sugden) and found him intriguing as a witness. Personally, I put a lot of stock in the fact that Abberline stated outright that he found him to be truthful. He believed his version of events. So let's follow this a bit.......

If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was telling the truth. Taking a quick detour back to Mitre Square - if we believe Levy about the red handkerchief worn about the man's neck, then the red handkerchief is a regular part of this person's attire. When it's chilly, he puts on his red hanky. Red hankys are useful for, say, wiping away blood. Blood is red after all and doesn't show up quite as well on a red hanky! Also, it keeps him warm, and it looks sharp. Returning to Miller's Court. Hutchinson sees the man give his red hanky to Kelly. They disappear inside number 13. It stands to reason that if this guy was JtR then he took his hanky back. It's handy for hiding blood. It's functional in that it keep him from catching a chill, and it's obviously a prized accessory!

Hi Patrick,

I noticed the red hanky connection and wondered if the description was common knowledge at the time Hutch gave his description?

If not, then surely it's a big plus for his credibility? And explains why Abberline took him seriously. You can imagine Abberline's ears pricking up if he heard him describe the red hanky.

And on that, I've always wondered if the reason Hutchinson pretty much dissappears from the story is because he was kept closely under wraps after having proven himself?

But I suppose if it was common knowledge that the man the Police were hunting wore a red hanky then it might just be that he was regurgitating what he had heard or read.

regards,

Tecs
12-19-2013, 08:39 AM
There is no need for Hutchinson to have attended the Inquest, clandestinely or otherwise. He would have been aware that a witness spotted someone with a Wideawake Hat and have an approximate time for that sighting....things he could use if he felt he needed to come forward to provide a story that suggests he was that man. Im wondering though.....why then would he feel the need to come forward and place himself in precarious shoes at all? If he didnt attend the Inquest he would have no issues with any recognition issues on the part of Sarah Lewis, she didnt identify the man as someone she knew or could recognize again anyway. Why not stay out of it entirely..since the Inquest was over and it was after all, 4 days after the fact. The criminal he says he saw could have sailed away in 4 days...he certainly doesnt offer something that has immediate potential...its 4 days old. The guy could be anywhere, and wearing anything but the items George identifies the man wearing.

So why come forward at all? Fear he might be called into a lineup that Sarah Lewis views?...not likely after the Inquest. Trying to get some limelight? Possibly. Trying to implicate someone in Marys murder...whether he actually was there and saw her, or not? Possibly.

The distinct similarities in the description of the man he says he saw matches someone that Abberline would be familiar with, and he would have reason to suspect was active in some criminal scheme. There is evidence that suggests The Home Office/Special Branch considered Kellys murder may have been committed by Irish Self Rule factions. Which would then make that ID quite plausible. Royal Irish Constabularies and Members of Parliament, recently re-convened, visited that site on the same morning early the week after the murder.

I wonder whether the fact Abberline seems to believe George is related to a suspect description that Abberline would recognize? One that would fit some theories about the parties responsible.

Cheers

Hi Michael,

Surely this is the key issue. A man who voluntarily goes to the Police and admits that he was at the murder site at the right time and that not only did he know the victim, but he actually spoke to her shortly before she was murdered is either a completely innocent albeit naiive individual, or was up to no good.

The no good could have been trying to throw the Police off the scent with a false description or just attention seeking.

The fact that Hutchinson appears nowhere in Police files or memoirs as a suspect suggests that nobody in the Police thought that he was a likely Ripper. We cannot rule out the possibility that he was an attention seeker but we don't have any real reason to consider that he was.

So that only leaves the first option and everything we know about the situation suggests that he was simply an ordinary man who happened to get dragged into the story.

The fact that Abberline spent time with him, looked him in the eye, quizzed him and came away believing him is a massive point for me. I've made the following point many times but it's worth repeating. Although there is a tendency to believe that the LV's were in some way stupid or, shall we say, much less refined than we are today, they were actually extremely practical people who made the best out of very tough circumstances. No, they never used the internet, they wouldn't know how to send an email, wouldn't know how to use a mobile phone etc, but in terms of what they could and did do, they were extremely practical and for a LVE Policeman, intuition and interpreting body language was perhaps even more important than it is now. Especially when one considers the lack of alternative "tools" at their disposal.

Basically, if Abberline said it was so, it was. Or at least it is for me. That's not to say that he couldn't have made a mistake or been fooled, but in the absense of any reason to doubt his conclusion I don't think that we should.

I've never been into the idea of changing things to fit what we think is comfortable eg Maxwell must be mistaken because it is uncomfortable to accept what she says.

Hutchinson was only ever treated as a witness. End of. And we have no right to change that now.

And as for why he took 4 days to come forward? There may be a sinister explanation but how about he was either shocked or traumatised? Or more likely he realised the situation he was in and spent the weekend going over it in his mind before doing the right thing? Assuming he wasn't completely stupid and/or naiive, he must have known what could happen to him if he comes forward. Considering that, I propose that he was actually extremely brave.

Or as a final point to consider, it's possible that Astrakhan man also got a good look at him. Knowing what this man was capable of, I'm sure most of us would consider the pro's and con's before putting our head above the parapet, in fact be honest, how many of us would actually come forward at all?

Now if Hutchinson decided to come forward but used an alias. And if he was in fact Jewish.......


Anderson???


regards,

Patrick S
12-19-2013, 11:16 AM
I have much the same opinion as you do with respect to Abberline. He was there. He investigated these crimes, he saw the bodies, saw the crime scenes, spoke with witnesses, interviewed suspects. In my view, it's folly to dismiss his opinions. With respect to Hutchinson, Abberline stated explicitly that he believed the man. This is something the he did not always do throught the course of these investigations. From what I've read, Abberline seems to have not been one to shy away from saying that he was unsure of something. He seems, in contrast to some of the other police figures of the time, to have been fairly honest and straightforward, and not one to feel ashamed in saying, "I don't know."

As we know, Lewende and Hutchinson give differing desciptions. But could they have both seen the same man?

The ages are close. Lewende says 30, Hutchinson 34 or 35. Lewende described the man's complexion as 'fair', Hutchinson says it was 'pale'. Height is given as 5"7' by Lewende, 5'6" by Hutchinson. Lewende says the man was of medium build, Hutchinson does not describe build. I think the main discrepency is that Lewende says the man's complexion AND mustach was 'fair', while Hutchinson says the man's 'slight mustache' (curled at the ends) was 'dark'. Taking into consideration things like lighting, quality of memory, influnces on memory, vantage point, perspective, etc., this could very well be the same man. Both mention a red handkerchief.

If we consider that Hutchinson states he stepped up to the man and looked him square in the face, we might trust his opinion a bit more with respect to hair color.

Based upon the times these men were observed the times the body (Eddowes) was found, and the estimated time(s) of death (Kelly), I believe it's likely (though not certain) that both men saw the killer.

So if you take the commonalities in the physical desciption given by one witness and not given (or contraticted) by the other you have a composite:

- Average Height / 5'6 or 5'7"
- Average Build / 145-150 lbs. (my estimate)
- 30 to 35 Years Old
- Fair/Pale Complexion
- Dark Mustache (turned up at the ends)
- Carrying/wearing a red handkerchief

Most detectives will tell you that eye witnesses are generally pretty unrealiable. Memory is tricky and very individual thing. Assuming that's true, we may be doing pretty well to get descriptions this consistent.

Sam Flynn
12-19-2013, 11:40 AM
If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was telling the truth.!
Not quite, Patrick. The best one could say is "If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was believable". Whether he was telling the truth or not is another matter.

Patrick S
12-19-2013, 11:46 AM
Not quite, Patrick. The best one could say is "If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was believable". Whether he was telling the truth or not is another matter.

I guess we could have a semantical argument, if you think it's important. If we did, I'd stand by what I said. Abberline said, "I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true." Thus, Abberline did not say he is of the opinion that he seemed "believable". He said that, in his opinion, his statement is "TRUE", i.e. he "was telling the truth". Therefore, my statment, "If one BELIEVES ABBERLINE, then Hutchinson was telling the truth", holds. If I had said Hutchinson was telling the truth without adding the caveat "If one believes Abberline (which I puposely added to avoid this kind of discussion), then you'd have a point.

But who wants to nipick semantics?

Varqm
12-20-2013, 04:37 AM
In my opinion as long as the witness did not have bulging eyes turning left and right or made circles with his hands etc, while answering Abberline/investigator the tendency was to believe.They had nothing to go on with, and anything like Hutchinson's statement was big enough to pursue further.They investigated a number of witnesses's statements, meaning they appear to be believable at first, otherwise they would not have and a number of them were false. How would one report to their superiors about these witnesses? I think Abberline's statement was normal ie,. Sir the guy does not seem to be lying, Sir he seemed believable, Sir in my opinion he is saying the truth..it's all the same. Further investigation of the statement is what mattered. Hutchinson's statement was dismissed and nothing significant was given to it further.

Sally
12-20-2013, 04:56 AM
Hi Varqm,

Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man fitted contemporary press accounts of a well-dressed man seen in suspicious circumstances; which, whether Hutchinson was telling the truth or not, would probably have helped to convince when he gave his statement to the police.

Naturally, the simplest explanation is that Hutchinson saw the same man reported in contemporary press accounts.

That said, I think to accept that at face value would be simplistic in this case. The press reports describing the well-dressed man are sufficiently generic as to make it impossible to know whether there was one, or several men. The general hysteria in the area following the murder of Kelly encouraged suspicion of virtually anybody thought to be behaving 'oddly' as the general populace, if not the authorities, grasped at any straw they could find. In such circumstances, the extent to which we can safely rely on contemporary press reporting is debateable.

Of course, there is also the obvious possibility that Hutchinson consciously modelled Mr. Astrakhan on those same press reports. It may seem improbable at first glance, but when you consider that Hutchinson's statement to the police matches slightly earlier press reports almost verbatim at several points; maybe not so improbable.

Were that the case, then we might begin to wonder at his motivation.

There are many possibilities here.

caz
12-20-2013, 08:51 AM
And as for why he took 4 days to come forward? There may be a sinister explanation but how about he was either shocked or traumatised? Or more likely he realised the situation he was in and spent the weekend going over it in his mind before doing the right thing? Assuming he wasn't completely stupid and/or naiive, he must have known what could happen to him if he comes forward. Considering that, I propose that he was actually extremely brave.

Or as a final point to consider, it's possible that Astrakhan man also got a good look at him. Knowing what this man was capable of, I'm sure most of us would consider the pro's and con's before putting our head above the parapet, in fact be honest, how many of us would actually come forward at all?

Hi Tecs,

Some very good points here in an excellent post.

I was thinking the same thing, that if Hutch believed he had seen the ripper and followed him and Kelly back to Miller's Court, he'd be taking a considerable risk by giving the police an accurate and highly detailed description of this very dangerous man. It may explain why he didn't fancy appearing at the inquest to do it under oath. It stands to reason that if Hutch could have gone to the Town Hall and learned that Lewis had fingered him as a suspect, then the man Hutch described could have gone there too and might have taken deadly revenge if Hutch had fingered him publicly. He would have expressed any such concerns to Abberline, when explaining his delay in coming forward, and genuine fear would have given his story credibility. Why would he be so frightened of this man if he was not telling the truth about him?

The only reservation I have is that Hutch apparently went straight to the papers with his description, which sounds on the face of it a stupid thing to do if he was seriously worried about the ripper's reaction. But then the ripper would have to find him first, and we don't know if any of the published details about Hutch were even correct, or would have been sufficient to track him down if they were. That may have been something else arranged by Abberline, to help protect a potentially major witness who was accompanying the police to look for the man he saw. The story may have reached the papers with the blessing of the police because the details had not come out at the inquest.

There is also the possibility that Hutch gave a wildly different description of the man he saw, in a bid to reassure him that he hadn't grassed him up.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-20-2013, 09:47 AM
Hi All,

It mustn't be forgotten that while Hutch came forward late, other potentially important male witnesses didn't come forward at all.

If Hutch was the ripper, every other person of interest who failed to come forward to clear himself must have been innocent - including Blotchy for instance. But it's not really all that surprising that men would not want to be associated with these prostitute murders if they could avoid it.

If Hutch did recognise himself as the man Lewis saw (and I still don't know how he is meant to have tracked her and her story down at the Town Hall - it seems a very loose theoretical possibility to me) he seems to have been the only one on the planet at the time. If the police missed the connection, so did Lewis herself, and Kennedy, and all those other women she apparently shared her story with. Unaccountably, none of them read in their newspaper that this man Hutchinson was watching the court, waiting for someone to come out, and remembered the man Lewis had seen doing exactly the same thing? Lewis had done her duty at the inquest. If she later read Hutchinson's account I find it hard to believe she would not have gone back to the police to tell them this must be her loitering man, so they could cross him off their list of people to identify. Not only that, but the police would then have had confirmation of Hutch's presence, and couldn't have dismissed him as having no connection.

I'm now wondering if the police were furious when Hutch's story appeared in the papers, and sought to repair the damage by feeding them the line about a 'reduced importance' (and possibly the idea that it had actually been discredited), to give the ripper a false sense of security in the event that he was indeed the man Hutch had described in so much detail.

Love,

Caz
X

Michael W Richards
12-20-2013, 09:52 AM
It seems that some folks believe that Abberlines belief is something of a stamp of approval on the statement made by Hutchinson Monday night. Its his stamp of approval, thats a given, but he could have been backing a fraud or a liar without knowing it quite easily. A convincing story containing elements Abberline knows could be true...like this astrakan trimming for one....might have been enough to sell him on it. How do we know Hutchinson wasnt one of Abberlines old contacts when he worked the streets of the area....tracking and arresting Fenians? How do we know Hutchinson was indeed who he said he was? How do we know Hutchinson was actually there....because he said he was and someone saw someone wearing a wideawake hat where he said he stood?

Belief in a statement doesnt make it truthful, nor does it make it worthy of continuing investigation...as is evidenced in the case of Hutchinson. mentioning it in later correspondences doesnt validate it either....as seen in the case of Israel Schwartz, whose "believed" evidence is completely absent from the Inquest transcripts.

Carrie Maxwells statement doesnt make her a liar either....but the medical evidence does. Rigor, in a warm room, would not begin in 2 hours.

Cheers

Bridewell
12-20-2013, 10:05 AM
Hutchinson's statement was dismissed

Was it? By whom?

Bridewell
12-20-2013, 10:15 AM
Rigor, in a warm room, would not begin in 2 hours.

Michael,

We don't know when the fire went out. We only know that it was November and that MJK had no money. What reason is there to suppose that, following the murder, Kelly's body was lying in a warm room?

From:
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/biochemistry/a/aa061903a.htm

"Rigor mortis can be used to help estimate time of death. The onset of rigor mortis may range from 10 minutes to several hours, depending on factors including temperature (rapid cooling of a body can inhibit rigor mortis, but it occurs upon thawing)."

I think there are too many variables to rule out Maxwell's evidence on the basis of speculation about the likely onset time of rigor mortis.

Abby Normal
12-20-2013, 11:00 AM
Hi All,

It mustn't be forgotten that while Hutch came forward late, other potentially important male witnesses didn't come forward at all.

If Hutch was the ripper, every other person of interest who failed to come forward to clear himself must have been innocent - including Blotchy for instance. But it's not really all that surprising that men would not want to be associated with these prostitute murders if they could avoid it.

If Hutch did recognise himself as the man Lewis saw (and I still don't know how he is meant to have tracked her and her story down at the Town Hall - it seems a very loose theoretical possibility to me) he seems to have been the only one on the planet at the time. If the police missed the connection, so did Lewis herself, and Kennedy, and all those other women she apparently shared her story with. Unaccountably, none of them read in their newspaper that this man Hutchinson was watching the court, waiting for someone to come out, and remembered the man Lewis had seen doing exactly the same thing? Lewis had done her duty at the inquest. If she later read Hutchinson's account I find it hard to believe she would not have gone back to the police to tell them this must be her loitering man, so they could cross him off their list of people to identify. Not only that, but the police would then have had confirmation of Hutch's presence, and couldn't have dismissed him as having no connection.

I'm now wondering if the police were furious when Hutch's story appeared in the papers, and sought to repair the damage by feeding them the line about a 'reduced importance' (and possibly the idea that it had actually been discredited), to give the ripper a false sense of security in the event that he was indeed the man Hutch had described in so much detail.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Not sure what you are getting at here? Hutch said he was there, police beleived him, and Lewis confirms it. Maybe they made the specific connection, maybe not-what difference does it make?

Its actually the one thing that we can be pretty certain about hutch's story - he was standing outside the court at that time.

Abby Normal
12-20-2013, 11:19 AM
Along with the odd inclusion of the red hanky in hutch's story how about this:

Hutch says that mary kelly started there conversation by saying-"Hutchinson, can you lend......".
Now who descibes a conversation like that? wouldn't 99% of people who were describing this say something like-she said to me,"Can you lend...".

Why did he feel the need to describe her saying his name specifically? seems rather odd...?

Patrick S
12-20-2013, 11:48 AM
It seems that some folks believe that Abberlines belief is something of a stamp of approval on the statement made by Hutchinson Monday night. Its his stamp of approval, thats a given, but he could have been backing a fraud or a liar without knowing it quite easily.

I think the point is a simple one. Abberline's judgement is all we have to rely upon at this point. We don't know Abberline, as man. We only know his record, reputation, accolades, etc. Relying upon the judgement of such an individual is somewhat safter than relying upon the judgment of, say, an incompetent boob who never made an arrest in his life. From the vantage point of a century on, you take what you can, I suppose.

Tecs
12-20-2013, 01:13 PM
Along with the odd inclusion of the red hanky in hutch's story how about this:

Hutch says that mary kelly started there conversation by saying-"Hutchinson, can you lend......".
Now who descibes a conversation like that? wouldn't 99% of people who were describing this say something like-she said to me,"Can you lend...".

Why did he feel the need to describe her saying his name specifically? seems rather odd...?



Hi Abby,

I know I've made the point before but I wonder if people really did speak the way they are quoted as doing?

It's like the post war films about the battle of Britain for example, where the pilots are played by "posh" actors. As a result we have the idea that that is how WW2 pilots spoke. In reality most were middle class chaps who spoke perfectly normally in a way that we would easily recognise today.

So, because when written, Victorian era writers used that slightly dramatic, theatrical prose, we have the idea that that is how people really did speak.

It still happens today. Think about real life. My kids went to see a film this week and when discussing between themselves, one said:-

"Good that film, wasn't it?"

When you say it it sounds perfectly normal, but written down it looks odd. If writing about the conversation somebody would probably quote it as "That was a good film, wasn't it?" or "Wasn't that a good film?" But neither was what he actually said and weirdly, when you say them, they sound a bit strange even though they are grammatically correct!

So, I reckon that the LV's spoke just like we do now, not like in Ripper Street! But when quoted, people put that dramatic spin on it.

regards,

Michael W Richards
12-20-2013, 04:06 PM
Michael,

We don't know when the fire went out. We only know that it was November and that MJK had no money. What reason is there to suppose that, following the murder, Kelly's body was lying in a warm room?

From:
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/biochemistry/a/aa061903a.htm

"Rigor mortis can be used to help estimate time of death. The onset of rigor mortis may range from 10 minutes to several hours, depending on factors including temperature (rapid cooling of a body can inhibit rigor mortis, but it occurs upon thawing)."

I think there are too many variables to rule out Maxwell's evidence on the basis of speculation about the likely onset time of rigor mortis.

Warm ash found in the fireplace. Its what supports the blazing fire for light and the melted spout theorizing. What it is actually is evidence that a substantial fire had been made in that fireplace during the night. That could have been Mary throwing some fuel on a dying fire when she got home, and some more when she lay down to rest. Or whatever.

Cheers BW

Ben
12-21-2013, 10:14 AM
The amusing inability to gracefully concede the incorrect usage of ‘churlish’ is of a piece with the way obtuse issues are defended to these hilt on these Hutchinson threads.

Ooh, a split infinitive, Lechmere!

"to gracefully concede" - ouch.

See me after class where you will learn, amongst other things, that my use of the word "churlish" was entirely and provably correct in the context I used it. And since I've proven my detractors wrong in declaring it "incorrect", any further dwelling on the point will only make those detractors look silly.

But at least he admits to having an 'unusual' turn of phrase. I'd call it unique myself.

And this is a bad thing because...?

You were simply ignorant as to the alternative definitions of the word "churlish", and I was glad of the opportunity to steer you in the right direction. Churlish can definitely mean miserly, as I've personally known for ages, and one can easily be miserly to one's own predicament. I'm afraid I charge Equity minimum for any further English lessons.

while waiting for Ben to finally address my inquest question

Another split inifinitive...

It just won't do.

Ben
12-21-2013, 10:17 AM
Hi Tecs,

“The fact that Hutchinson appears nowhere in Police files or memoirs as a suspect suggests that nobody in the Police thought that he was a likely Ripper. We cannot rule out the possibility that he was an attention seeker but we don't have any real reason to consider that he was.

So that only leaves the first option and everything we know about the situation suggests that he was simply an ordinary man who happened to get dragged into the story.”

“The fact that Hutchinson appears nowhere in Police files or memoirs as a suspect” is only an indication that he was never considered a suspect, and if he wasn’t even considered a suspect, it can hardly be argued that he was dismissed as an unlikely one. An 1888 police force with no experience of serial killers was unlikely to countenance the possibility of the real killer coming forward with a self-preserving lie. He was, in the event, dismissed as an “attention-seeker”, but that only means that in recognising the implausible nature of his account, the police failed to consider that he too was suspect, and not just to the extent that a two-a-penny time-waster might be considered so. The “ordinary man who happened to get dragged into the story” explanation is actually the weakest of the three suggestions you posit, and certainly not in accordance with the lasting police view of Hutchinson’s credibility.

“The fact that Abberline spent time with him, looked him in the eye, quizzed him and came away believing him is a massive point for me.”

With respect, it really oughtn’t to be.

“Looking him in the eye” is completely worthless as a barometer for assessing honesty (or lack thereof), as is any type of conclusion based on body language. Many a wrongun – liars and serial killers – have been “looked in the eye” by police officials without creating suspicion. Peter Sutcliffe was “looked in the eye” nine times by police interviewing him in connection with the Yorkshire ripper crimes, and on each occasion he betrayed not a hint of suspicion or menace, presumably being dismissed on each occasion as an “ordinary man who happened to get dragged into the story”. Or you might consider Kenneth Bianchi, who never elicited suspicion when he was “looked in the eye” by the policeman he convinced to give him a tour of his own crime scenes.

In a recent documentary entitled “Crocodile Tears”, which explored cases of killers “helping the investigation” by going on organized search parties with police and giving tearful interviews to camera, David Canter observed that it was “nonsense” to argue that body language and presentation can tell a liar from a honest person. The best way to ascertain this, he argues, is by listening to what they actually say – the content rather than the presentation, in other words. Since we have the former at our disposal, we’re at no disadvantage when compared to Abberline. We’re working with the same material, albeit with a little more criminal and psychological insight than Abberline had at his disposal in 1888; the same material that could not possibly have been looked into and verified when he penned his initial report of approval just hours after first hearing of Hutchinson.

Author James Tully, who had no vested interest in promoting Hutchinson either as a liar or a killer, conceded that Abberline’s opinion that “his statement is true” is not particularly significant considering that the police were ready to “clutch at any straw” at that stage. It might be remembered that Abberline also believed that Severin Klosowski was an “expert surgeon” who harvested organs from Whitechapel prostitutes on behalf of an “American agent”, and who then went to America to commit more mutilation murders when he realised he hadn’t collected enough innards for his boss. Given the rather baffling insistence I’ve seen here that whatever Abberline says goes, it’s a wonder that more people haven’t advanced his Klosowski theory as accurate, unless of course they’re just not applying their reasoning very consistently.

But perhaps more to the point, it is extremely clear that Abberline’s early impression of Hutchinson was revised. The Echo newspaper obtained a direct communication with the police at Commercial Street station on the 13th November, and discovered that “later investigations” had caused the police to attach a “very reduced importance” to his account, and this owed in part to Hutchinson’s failure to appear at the inquest under oath, where his evidence would have been compared to that provided by other witnesses. In other words, his account suffered credibility issues, despite Abberline’s initial face-value thumbs-up. This was underscored the next day by the same paper who recorded that Hutchinson’s statement had been “considerably discounted”, and the Star reported a day later that it was “now discredited”, with the more damning terminology in the latter case being explained by the press versions of his account, which drastically undermined his original police statement.

The reality of Hutchinson’s discrediting is borne out by the later reports, memoirs and interviews of police officials who were active at the time, including Abberline, who stated that the witnesses only saw the suspect’s back. Even allowing for a fading memory having forgotten that Lawende, for instance, had seen the alleged victim’s back and not the suspect’s, it is impossible accept that he’d neglect to mention star witness Hutchinson, who alleged a face-to-face encounter with the suspect, and with whom he had a personal interview. That is, unless Hutchinson had been discredited years ago, as reported at the time. Here was an opportunity to establish parallels between surly-looking, dark-haired foreign Klosowski and surly-looking, dark-haired foreign Astrakhan man, and yet we hear nothing.

Would Abberline have really been that ungenerous and stringy (i.e. churlish) to his own case against Klosowski, i.e. by failing to mention a crucial Astrkhan-Klosowski comparison? Anderson famously claimed that the only person to have had a “good view” of the murderer was Jewish, despite Hutchinson alleging a far better “view” than any of the Jewish witnesses, and Macnaghten claimed that nobody saw the Whitechapel murderer, unless it was the City PC. Even if we allow for hazy memories, Hutchinson is conspicuous in his absence from these reminiscences.

“Assuming he wasn't completely stupid and/or naiive, he must have known what could happen to him if he comes forward. Considering that, I propose that he was actually extremely brave.”

That’s until you note the correlation between Lewis’s revelation that a man was loitering opposite Miller’s Court shortly before the murder, and Hutchinson’s claim to have loitered in that very location and at that very time – a claim that emerged just after the publication of Lewis’ evidence. Unless we’re prepared to accept striking coincidence as a viable explanation, the obvious reality is that Hutchinson came forward after realising he’d been seen at the crime scene, which somewhat weakens the suggestion that he showed “bravery” in coming forward.

Regards,
Ben

Ben
12-21-2013, 10:26 AM
Of course I chose my words carefully ( for me) so as not to offend, but it seems Ben took it to heart, and for this I apologise.

And I extend the same, Observer. No worries.

It is, of course, possible that the police considered Hutchinson a suspect at some stage, but we have no evidence that this was the case. Had it been otherwise, Abberline would have made reference to these suspicions in his private, internal police report penned just a few hours after first meeting Hutchinson. When “later investigations” prompted the police to revise that initial face-value impression of Abberline’s, resulting in Hutchinson’s eventual discrediting, it is clear that he was regarded as a bogus witness only. But publicity-seeking bogus witnesses – then and now – are infinitely more common than serial killers pretending to be witnesses, even though the latter are by no means uncommon amongst serial killers, a very rare breed in themselves.

You can surely understand that a police force, unaccustomed to serial killers and probably looking for a completely different type of offender (foreign, mad, and with medical/butchery knowledge), could easily and plausibly overlook the possibility of the Jack the Ripper entering a police station and requesting an audience with the police, with the intention of pulling the wool over their eyes? Some people can’t even get their heads around the idea today, despite proven examples of serial killers injecting themselves into their own police investigations.

It surprises me sometimes when I see people write things like “He admitted to being the last person to see her alive”. It is only an “admission” if it’s true. If it isn’t true, or cannot be determined to be true, it is merely a “claim”. Hutchinson was one discredited witness amongst many, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of these discredited witnesses were considered to have lied about their very presence at a crime scene. Why would the police have chucked out the bulk of Hutchinson’s account as false, whilst insisting that the detail about him loitering opposite Miller’s Court was true? Not because of Sarah Lewis. Had any connection been made at the time between Hutchinson and Lewis’ wideawake man, it would have been noted in the press, and yet not a peep, either from the press or the police.

And with the complete lack of evidence for any Hutchinson-Lewis connection being registered by the police, bang goes any rationale for insisting the police must have had a “good” reason for believing that he really was at the scene as he claimed, and bang goes any rationale for insisting the police considered him any differently from Violenia and Packer, both of whom were discredited witnesses, and both of whom claimed to have been at a ripper crime scene when a ripper crime was committed.

I don’t agree that the police considered Violenia a “nut” and there is no evidence to support such a contention. He was simply considered a lying witness – lying in the sense that he lied about everything, including his self-alleged presence at the crime scene. Packer only has an alibi insofar as it was provided by other members of his family, which, for obvious reasons, hardly makes it “unshakable”.

“LVP” stands for “Late Victorian Period”. It doesn’t refer to the police.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
12-21-2013, 10:32 AM
Hi Patrick,

“If one believes Abberline, then Hutchinson was telling the truth. Taking a quick detour back to Mitre Square - if we believe Levy about the red handkerchief worn about the man's neck, then the red handkerchief is a regular part of this person's attire. When it's chilly, he puts on his red hanky. Red hankys are useful for, say, wiping away blood.”

I’m interested to hear this view, especially in light of Caz’s recent suggestion that Hutchinson would never have been so foolish as to invent the red handkerchief in order to establish a link with Lawende’s suspect from Church Passage. The reason being (apparently) that such a ploy would never work, because nobody would ever accept that two people with such strikingly different clothing would use the same red hanky in different ways. And yet here you are, suggesting that this is precisely what happened, thus reassuring me that Hutchinson could well have been motivated into inventing the hanky for the reason I suggest.

A close look at Hutchinson’s impossibly detailed description reveals that certain physical characteristics (and accessories and items and clothing) appeared previously in the press. Whether this was due to the real ripper being silly enough and imprudent enough to attire himself in the manner that encompassed every “scary” attribute ever applied to him in the press – surly-looking, foreign, well-dressed (as befitting a medical man), and carrying the obligatory black package of knifey dimensions, - or Hutchinson inventing a not-so-subtle suspect for some reason, is anyone’s guess, but I know where I’m placing my bet.

It wasn’t possible to register small coloured objects from the corner of Dorset Street all the way to the Miller’s Court entrance, especially not in poor weather conditions in the small hours of the morning in Victorian London, and it would not have been visible beneath two overcoats either.

“Red hankys are useful for, say, wiping away blood. Blood is red after all and doesn't show up quite as well on a red hanky! Also, it keeps him warm, and it looks sharp.”

In light of the forgoing, it seems likely that yours was precisely the sort of reaction Hutchinson was hoping for from the police. It might also have aided the cause of a working class ripper to have everyone believe that Lawende’s suspect was secretly a wealthy Jewish dandy who “dressed down” for the Eddowes murder, and used his nice, posh hanky as a neckerchief to look a bit rough and shabby.

We should remember that Lawende’s description had been public knowledge for some considerable time before Hutchinson contacted the police. The latter could easily have used elements from both legitimate witnesses and sensational press claims in order to construct a suspect – a fictional bogeyman whose conjured-up presence would both “explain” Hutchinson’s own loitering presence opposite a crime scene as clocked by Sarah Lewis, and deflect suspicion in a false direction. It certainly cannot be argued that his description corroborates previous descriptions, as that would only apply if he had no means of accessing (and "borrowing" from) those previous descriptions.

Finally, if your favoured approach is to endorse whatever the contemporary police said, it is important to acknowledge that the police did not endorse the suggestion that Lawende and Hutchinson saw the same man. On the contrary, if Lawende was Anderson’s witness (as appears likely, in my view), you’re left having to explain why they did not use a better description of the same man – the one supposedly provided by Hutchinson. Lawende doubted that he would recognise the man again, whereas Hutchinson could swear to the man anywhere, so why not use Hutchinson? The answer is that Hutchinson was discredited, and his Astrakhan description not considered a legitimate sighting of Jack the Ripper.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
12-21-2013, 10:40 AM
Hi Caz,

“I was merely using these examples to demonstrate that when Hutch came forward he would not have needed to be remotely psychic to fear that anyone could have been awake and heard noises that brought them to their window”

But if we’re to credit him with any sort of ability for proper risk assessment, he would have realised that the chances of anyone peering out of their bedroom window at nothing were extremely remote at 3:30am, and that a swift and quiet entry into room #13 wouldn’t have enabled any window-gazing insomniac to see anything beyond the back of a man in dark clothes and a hat. Contrast that with the full and clear realisation that a woman had definitely seen him, and not just from the back, and we have a rational fear, unlike the proposed scenario involving him getting the willies over windows.

“If he did, he presumably heard the same cries of murder that others heard, and he'd have been hard pressed to break into that room and launch into the attack without making the slightest sound”

Well no, because in the scenario we’re currently exploring, Hutchinson would himself have been responsible for the “cries of murder that others heard”, and he’d have been buggered anyway if Lewis and/or Prater had taken their curiosity further. There is no reason to think that he made “the slightest sound” before he entered the room, away from prying eyes, if not ears.

“But an outside lamp wouldn't have helped Hutch see inside a darkened room, where someone could have peeped out from behind a dark curtain to investigate any nocturnal comings and goings.”

But the chances of that happening were so astonishingly slim that any fear of that outcome would have been highly irrational, unlike the fear that would have resulted from the knowledge that someone had seen him at relatively close quarters. And the same applies here too:

“It's not that anyone did see the ripper breaking into or leaving the room afterwards. It's the fact that anyone could have done, and he would not have known about it either way - even after the inquest, as any such witness testimony could have been held back to give the murderer a false sense of security.”

We have to distinguish between rational fears and highly irrational paranoia. It doesn’t follow that a serial killer who injects himself in the investigation out of self-preservation must also be terrified of every other potential negative outcome, however unlikely. He would doubtless have assessed the likelihood of him being spotted entering the room, or leaving it during the market hustle and bustle, and rightly considered it to be slim. Not so in the case of Lewis’ sighting.

“I notice you still haven't explained how Hutch would have registered the fact that Lewis was among the large crowd of people at the Town Hall, and would be giving evidence at the inquest.”

Lewis would probably have been ushered into the courtroom by the police or other officials. It would, at the very least, have been extremely obvious to the crowds that gathered around Shoreditch Town Hall which individuals were to be used as witnesses at the inquest. And while the crowd would have scrutinised those witnesses, they were very unlikely to have been scrutinised back. Think of it like a high profile trial today – the principle witnesses would be ushered into the building, often with the press being snap-happy all around them, and while the focus of the crowd would be very much on those witnesses, the witnesses themselves are very unlikely to be in the frame of mind to return fire and pay particular attention to individuals immersed in that crowd. If Hutchinson was one such crowd member, the chances of him being clocked again by Lewis were equally slim.

“I was thinking the same thing, that if Hutch believed he had seen the ripper and followed him and Kelly back to Miller's Court, he'd be taking a considerable risk by giving the police an accurate and highly detailed description of this very dangerous man.”

So, Hutchinson conveniently arrives back in the area at around the time the ripper was active, and despite being fully aware that stories abounded of sinister Jewish types murdering prostitutes, he never so much as contemplates the idea that the surly-looking man in the flashy clothes might just be the sinister prostitute-murdering Jew in question? And yet he still manages to find the spectacle of Kelly hanging around with such a person so intensely fascinating that he spends 45 minutes loitering outside her home, but not before following this man and stooping to look into his face? Here we have a surly sinister stranger, and yet Hutchinson never once considered the possibility that he might be the surly sinister stranger that everyone is after.

If this doesn’t whiff mightily at the moment, it gets worse.

Then, after learning of Kelly’s murder, he only then contemplates the possibility that the man in question was the murderer – Jack the Ripper, no less – and then his bollocks disappear entirely. Gone is the aggressively inquisitive Hutchinson who stuck to the man like a limpet on the night in question, even the point of rudely staring right into his mug and stalking him for three quarters of an hour, and behold, a sissy emerges. Suddenly, this man from the labouring classes (and with a military appearance) is scared of a poncy, flashily-dressed, swaggering peacock dodging all the nocturnal police and vigilante activity, avoiding the muggers who might like his gold chain, breaking into the Victoria Home and unwrapping his American cloth parcel to Hutchinson’s detriment?

I really, really don’t think so, somehow.

“The story may have reached the papers with the blessing of the police because the details had not come out at the inquest.”


No.

The police-sanctioned release of Hutchinson’s description appeared on the 13th November, and deliberately did not include a name. However, this was undermined by a second account appearing in the press the next day, which Hutchinson gave to reporters which did include his name, and was not sanctioned by the police. You can forget the idea of Abberline “arranging” for details to be altered deliberately in order to “protect” Hutchinson (it's all getting a bit far-fetched and conspiratorial for me, this!). If he wanted to do that, he could have supplied a completely different name, and yet we know that didn’t happen, because Abberline’s private, internal report gave the name “George Hutchinson”.

“Unaccountably, none of them read in their newspaper that this man Hutchinson was watching the court, waiting for someone to come out, and remembered the man Lewis had seen doing exactly the same thing”

No, this doesn’t follow at all.

I’m sure many of them read it, and some of them may have made the connection, but if it had been published on the 14th that Hutchinson was an important witness, any connection would simply serve as corroboration for his claims, in their minds. They would only start having problems if it was published far and wide that Hutchinson was discredited as an attention-seeker, as this would probably prompt them to wonder why this should have occurred, when there was such an “obvious” element of corroboration in place. It all really depends if these people were as super-attentive and anxious to chew over the nitty-gritty as we are. Another point often missed is the reality that the wideawake man received such little interest at the time, not because he was investigated and determined not to have been Hutchinson (as per some very poor suggestions), but because he was eclipsed in terms of significance by the more obviously “scary” Bethnal Green botherer, who was the obvious bogeyman in her account.

“If she later read Hutchinson's account I find it hard to believe she would not have gone back to the police to tell them this must be her loitering man, so they could cross him off their list of people to identify.”

Why is that hard to believe? I find it next to impossible that she’d engage in such weird supererogation. If she recognised that Hutchinson’s account placed him in the spot where she saw her wideawake man, why wouldn’t she have assumed that the police must have made the same connection? The police didn’t require Lewis to hold their hands, and she would have realised that. She was quite the “doleful little body” at the inquest, evidently traumatised by her experience, and not the sort to have any more involvement as an amateur sleuth than the police required of her. She only became a witness after being forced to remain inside the court, remember.

“I'm now wondering if the police were furious when Hutch's story appeared in the papers, and sought to repair the damage by feeding them the line about a 'reduced importance' (and possibly the idea that it had actually been discredited), to give the ripper a false sense of security in the event that he was indeed the man Hutch had described in so much detail.”

In which case, they would have made an official release from either the Police Gazette or one of the news agencies, as opposed to what really happened, which was that certain trusted members of the press were informed only when specific inquiries were made about it. This was done to ensure that minimal embarrassment was caused to the police, who were understandably anxious to avoid censure for having the wool pulled over their eyes yet again by another dud witness. The hunt for Astrakhan was quietly abandoned.

Regards,
Ben

c.d.
12-21-2013, 10:55 AM
I think that we are getting all hung up on the meaning of "suspect" when we are discussing Hutchinson. I think it has different meanings to different people. Is there a legal definition? Is it used differently by the police? So let's try a different word. I think that we can all agree that Hutchinson's behavior was suspicious. Does that automatically make him a suspect? I don't know. Here in the U.S.,the police use the term "person of interest." It describes someone who the police WANT TO QUESTION because they think they may have information that may help them solve the crime. It also carries the unspoken implication that the police believe that that person might have somehow been involved or might actually be the perpetrator. If the person of interest is questioned and his answers don't seem to jive then he can become a suspect and might eventually be charged with the crime.

But if the person of interest is questioned and can provide a verifiable alibi then he NEVER becomes a suspect. I think this is what happened in Hutchinson's case. I simply refuse to accept the possibility that the police couldn't figure out that his story made him a person of interest. Therefore, I think he was questioned and Abberline and others concluded that he was not involved in Mary's murder. Now, as Ben has pointed out, that doesn't clear him but that is all we have.

As for him coming forward, it might have initially deflected any suspicion but that deflection had to have some sort of limits, i.e., I don't think it would have been been sufficient if some organs or a bloody knife dropped out of his pocket. Now that is extreme but the point is it could have only taken him so far.

c.d.

Varqm
12-22-2013, 02:50 AM
Hi Varqm,

Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man fitted contemporary press accounts of a well-dressed man seen in suspicious circumstances; which, whether Hutchinson was telling the truth or not, would probably have helped to convince when he gave his statement to the police.

Naturally, the simplest explanation is that Hutchinson saw the same man reported in contemporary press accounts.

That said, I think to accept that at face value would be simplistic in this case. The press reports describing the well-dressed man are sufficiently generic as to make it impossible to know whether there was one, or several men. The general hysteria in the area following the murder of Kelly encouraged suspicion of virtually anybody thought to be behaving 'oddly' as the general populace, if not the authorities, grasped at any straw they could find. In such circumstances, the extent to which we can safely rely on contemporary press reporting is debateable.

Of course, there is also the obvious possibility that Hutchinson consciously modelled Mr. Astrakhan on those same press reports. It may seem improbable at first glance, but when you consider that Hutchinson's statement to the police matches slightly earlier press reports almost verbatim at several points; maybe not so improbable.

Were that the case, then we might begin to wonder at his motivation.

There are many possibilities here.


Hi Sally,

It could have been based on newspaper reports plus any real well dressed person he'd seen on the streets plus his imagination. It would not be surprising that Hutchinson was reading about these cases and discussed/gossiped it with other people like a lot of others. I really don't see anything special about Hutchinson. In my opinion he is just one of the nutcases or false witnesses during those murders. They were probably used to cops in their beat, they did their song and dance and if there was a reward good if not not. People without jobs, relatively desperate, in bad circumstances could easily do anything for a potential reward of any sort. Either they live in a shelter or out in the cold or be hungry.I don't think there was a concept of anything bad happening to them if they become a false witness ie..there were no laws against, they had nothing to lose etc,.
To me there have to be one more thing or curious fact other than what he did to think he was a suspect at all.

Ben
12-22-2013, 08:10 AM
Hi CD,

Given the total absence of any evidence for contemporary police suspicion against Hutchinson, he cannot be regarded an official police suspect. If people are more comfortable with the term "person of interest" to refer to an individual against whom suspicions have been levelled, then I'm happy to roll with that. I fear we will forever disagree over Hutchinson being considered a suspect. I think the fact that policing in general was in its earliest phase n 1888, coupled with the fact that they had no precedent for serial killers coming forward and pretending to be witnesses, is a compelling enough reasons - along with the total lack of evidence - to conclude that Hutchinson was never suspected.

It's fine for people to challenge this, but it needs to be appreciated at the very least that there is a world of difference between merely suspecting a person and actually resolving those suspicions. They didn't have a magic wand with which to determine the guilt or innocence of suspected parties, hence the unresolved cases of Klosowski, Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog. There would have been a great many men suspected during the course of the investigation who were never proven innocent, and Hutchinson would have been one of them if he was ever suspected (which he almost certainly wasn't).

Speculating that he might have been suspected is one thing, but to then argue that he must have been "ruled out" as well is a bridge far too far. It is using one no-evidence speculation to bolster another.

"Alibis" you can forget straight away. Hutchinson made it very clear that he dot have one for the Kelly murder, and he could easily have bluffed his way out of the others by claiming he was asleep in the extremely busy Victoria Home on those nights (i.e. just like every other night). Even in the exceptionally unlikely event that the police did suspect Hutchinson, they had no means of shoring up those suspicions beyond staking him out and hoping to catch him in the act, and unless anyone wants to argue that the police were still interested in doing that a year later, when Alice McKenzie was killed...?

Hi Varqm,

I really don't see anything special about Hutchinson. In my opinion he is just one of the nutcases or false witnesses during those murders.

If there's a crucial and obvious difference between Hutchinson and the other "nutcases or false witnesses", it's that none of these were seen by another witness loitering opposite a ripper murder scene, seemingly fixated with it. Nor did any of them come forward as soon as they discovered they'd been seen by the "another witness" in question. While Hutchinson cannot be proved to have engaged in such behaviour, it's the only realistic explanation that doesn't involve implausible "coincidence".

Regards,
Ben

Wickerman
12-22-2013, 09:36 AM
“The fact that Hutchinson appears nowhere in Police files or memoirs as a suspect” is only an indication that he was never considered a suspect, and if he wasn’t even considered a suspect, it can hardly be argued that he was dismissed as an unlikely one.

I suspect it is the result of your turn of phrase, Hutchinson was never (as far as we know) listed by the police as a suspect. I don't think anyone has suggested that idea.

What has been said is, that once Abberline received his voluntary statement, the subsequent meeting with Hutchinson will have been a dual case of Abberline allowing for the possibility that he is either, interviewing a witness, or interrogating a suspect.
Depending on how believable this new witness was, and on the content of what he had to say.

c.d.
12-22-2013, 09:57 AM
Exactly. Abberline wanted to know just what the hell were you doing outside of the murdered woman's apartment. That question doesn't change depending on whether this was an interview or an interrogation or whether he was considered a witness or a suspect. The question remained the same and Hutchinson needed to have a damn good answer.

c.d.

Wickerman
12-22-2013, 10:21 AM
It could have been based on newspaper reports plus any real well dressed person he'd seen on the streets plus his imagination.



It is rather amusing that such alternatives are considered as, a 'tailors' dummy', and a 'composite of previous witness descriptions' (yet totally unrelated as to detail), rather than simply take the witness at his word.

It does not matter how impractical or unbelievable any fringe alternatives are, but rather to come up with anything, however ludicrous, with which to maintain the argument that Hutchinson was lying.
A perspective completely without foundation.

Ben
12-22-2013, 10:22 AM
What has been said is, that once Abberline received his voluntary statement, the subsequent meeting with Hutchinson will have been a dual case of Abberline allowing for the possibility that he is either, interviewing a witness, or interrogating a suspect.

No, it wouldn't have been.

He was allowing for the possibility that Hutchinson was either a legitimate witness or a bogus, attention-seeking one. The police had precedent for both types of behaviour, whereas the notion that the real Jack the Ripper would waltz into a police station pretending to be a witness had no precedent whatsoever, and was thus very unlikely to have been entertained as a possibility.

Exactly. Abberline wanted to know just what the hell were you doing outside of the murdered woman's apartment.

No, Abberline wanted to know if Hutchinson was being truthful regarding his very presence outside the murdered woman's apartment. It doesn't become gospel just because Hutchinson said so. With so many attention-seekers infesting the case, it was the task of Abberline to determined whether he was telling the truth about being present at the crime scene as a witness, or a time-wasting liar like Matthew Packer.

Regards,
Ben

Ben
12-22-2013, 10:33 AM
It is rather amusing that such alternatives are considered as, a 'tailors' dummy', and a 'composite of previous witness descriptions' (yet totally unrelated as to detail), rather than simply take the witness at his word.

What do you mean "totally unrelated as to detail"? If the Astrakhan fabrication was a "composite of witness descriptions", they didn't have to "relate" to one another. Hutchinson needed simply to borrow whatever pieces of press nonsense had been most popular, and thus stood the best chance of being lapped up as accurate by the populace. The Jewish appearance had been popular even since the "Leather Apron", and black bags/parcels had been doing the rounds from the Stride murder onwards, with "Sarah Roney" being the latest offender. Astrakhan was essentially a composite of various bogeymen ripper attributes that had been doing the rounds.

In addition, there was a very specific account that appeared in the Daily News on the 10th November, which was so strikingly similar to Hutchinson's account that it may be regarded as next to impossible that it wasn't a chief source of inspiration for Astrakhan,

Again, you can embrace the woeful delusion that latter-day suspicions of Hutchinson's account are "fringe" ideas if you're insistent upon it, but I find reality works considerably better. Your condemnations are both valueless and inaccurate, and it angers with an unusual intensity that you can fee comfortable lashing out with such irritating accusations when you should be aware of the extreme "fringiness" of your own "Isaakstrakhan" hypothesis.

Wickerman
12-22-2013, 10:47 AM
Show me where we read of 'gaiters', Astrachan-trimmed coat', gold watch chain, dark jacket, light waistcoat, horseshoe tie-pin....

Do you really need help with such a simple question?

It is more than obvious to anyone who can read that the important details which may distinguish one person from any another have nothing whatsoever to do with any previously published suspect descriptions.

Whereas - age, moustache, red neckerchief/handkerchief are all we have that anyone could identify as 'potentially borrowed'. Given that 'age & 'moustache' are common elements across the suspects . Only the issue of the neckerchief/handkerchief remains of interest, and here we are.....

Ben
12-22-2013, 11:00 AM
Show me where we read of 'gaiters', Astrachan-trimmed coat', gold watch chain, dark jacket, light waistcoat, horseshoe tie-pin...

You spectacularly miss the point.

The accessories and clothing items you mention (and want to stick, hilariously, on Joseph Isaacs) are all of a piece in depicting a particular type of individual. Astrakhan coats were often worn by Russians and Eastern Europeans, and would thus have been a suitable garment to adorn a fictional suspect if the intention was to depict him as a foreigner. As I've mentioned before, it had been speculated in the press that the killer may well have been Jewish or a foreigner.

Equally, the expensive looking accessories all indicated a wealthy individual, and if Hutchinson sought to depict the ripper as such a person, he had only to conjure up a number (quite a considerable number!) of accessories that might fuel that impression. Again, the Chapman murder had given rise to the belief that the killer might have been a surgeon, and surgeons dress nicely and carry the tools of their trade in a black bag, or so your average labourer might think...

Wickerman
12-22-2013, 02:24 PM
The accessories and clothing items you mention (and want to stick, hilariously, on Joseph Isaacs) are all of a piece in depicting a particular type of individual. Astrakhan coats were often worn by Russians and Eastern Europeans, and would thus have been a suitable garment to adorn a fictional suspect if the intention was to depict him as a foreigner. As I've mentioned before, it had been speculated in the press that the killer may well have been Jewish or a foreigner.

None of which rules out Isaacs as the subject.
Your whole argument relies on a succession of 'ifs', nothing established, nothing proven, nothing even demonstrable.
Because you choose to believe the subject was invented does not make it so.


Equally, the expensive looking accessories all indicated a wealthy individual,....

There's nothing obviously 'wealthy' about the suspect, his entire attire may well have been shabby, flea-bitten & moth-eaten.
Even the lowliest of dossers often sported a well-worn bowler or shabby top-hat.
You have only your assumption to back your argument that the suspect was wealthy. Every item of clothing mentioned could be bought for coppers in Petticoat Lane. Especially by someone who had a reputation as a 'poser'.

Ben
12-22-2013, 06:55 PM
None of which rules out Isaacs as the subject.

I'm not saying it does. Isaacs is ruled out conclusively as "the subject" for other, far more important reasons, such as the police's complete dismissal of him as a suspect, which couldn't possibly have occurred if they thought he was Astrakhan man. But if you fancy going through this all over again, just say so.

I don't "choose" to believe the "subject was invented". I'm simply obliged by the evidence to arrive at this inescapable conclusion based on the fact that Hutchinson's statement was discredited. But if you fancy going through this all over again, just say so.

There's nothing obviously 'wealthy' about the suspect, his entire attire may well have been shabby, flea-bitten & moth-eaten.

But either you accept Hutchinson's words or you don't.

You can't just fiddle with them in the hope that you can make them seem more palatable. Hutchinson said that the man wore a "thick, gold chain", not a crude imitation, and no, the clothing and accessories reported by Hutchinson could not have been "bought for coppers in Petticoat Lane".

Varqm
12-22-2013, 08:11 PM
If there's a crucial and obvious difference between Hutchinson and the other "nutcases or false witnesses", it's that none of these were seen by another witness loitering opposite a ripper murder scene, seemingly fixated with it. Nor did any of them come forward as soon as they discovered they'd been seen by the "another witness" in question. While Hutchinson cannot be proved to have engaged in such behaviour, it's the only realistic explanation that doesn't involve implausible "coincidence".

Ben

The man at 2:30 AM being Hutchinson is not proven by any way shape or form. Not even close. The newspapers and police did not as far as we know and I''ll go by that. It's just your fantasy/imagination/extrapolation.

The ripper was seen by Lawende, Harris Levy, Long and he continued and did not get spooked. I'll go by that. You therefore assume he must have a connection with those Miller's Court people and give that as a reason he got spooked.There is no proof that Hutchinson has any connection with those Miller's Court people at all one way or another.The newspapers and police did not as far as we know and I''ll go by that.

Any of those nutcases or false witnesses could have told any story they wanted. Since there was no law against and ,significant to me,they were relatively in desperate or bad circumstances - any reward/notoriety was good - the sky was the limit. Hutchinson got several hours to make a story and for all we know even without the morning's inquest he would have done so. You assume he got spooked as opposed to he used part of Lewis's testimony.

But if you believe Hutchinson was telling the truth then it's different .
.

Ben
12-23-2013, 04:56 AM
Varqm,

You never actually address any of my responses to your points. You just keep repeating your original post, almost verbatim, as though the points were never addressed. Don't do that anymore. Present counter arguments if you have them, and I will address those in turn.

It is also very surprising, considering that you post almost exclusively in the Hutchinson forum, that you've got it into your mind that connecting Hutchinson and Lewis' wideawake loiterer is just my "fantasy/imagination/extrapolation". Conduct a little more research and you'll discover that a great many people think as I do, including those who believe he told the truth, and the reason for this is very obvious: Sarah Lewis saw someone standing outside Miller's Court at 2:30am, apparently watching and waiting for someone to come out, and as soon as this detail was publicly divulged, Hutchinson came forward and claimed that he was standing outside Miller's Court at 2:30am, watching and waiting for someone to come out. The only "fantasy" here is the notion that this was one giant "coincidence".

The ripper was seen by Lawende, Harris Levy, Long and he continued and did not get spooked.

I've dealt with this already, but you just repeat the original objection without bothering to address my response, so in the spirit of fun repetition, I'll write out my response again. The man with the neckerchief was seen by the Jewish trio ten minutes before the discovery of the victim's body. How could he have said, "Yes, that was me talking to Eddowes ten minutes before the discovery of her body, but Mr. Astrakhan must have snuck in after I left, and inveigled, dispatched and mutilated her at lightening speed"..? without being suspected immediately? The reality is that Hutchinson could not have come forward as Lawende's man - and under the guise of an innocent witness - even if he wanted to.

There is no proof that Hutchinson has any connection with those Miller's Court people at all one way or another.

Nor does there need to be any.

Hutchinson could have feared subsequent recognition by Lewis, whether she was a mild acquaintance or a complete stranger.

Hutchinson got several hours to make a story and for all we know even without the morning's inquest he would have done so.

Several hours? What was wrong with the three days since the murder? If he was just another nutcase and/or reward-seeker, he could have approached police with a bogus story at any time from the discovery of the murder onwards, and yet he just happened to come forward as soon as the inquest closed and its details were essentially public knowledge, including Lewis' wideawake man.

Odd "coincidence", that.

Patrick S
12-23-2013, 06:21 AM
Ben,

You have your hands full, it seems, with a few other conversations. I'm afraid my response is somewhat more boring. So, I'll be brief.

My view is not simply to endorse whatever the contemporary police believed. Like anyone who is objective, I have my doubts about Hutchinson. I find his description far more detailed than what one would reasonably expect. However, I didn't speak to the man. I didn't look him in the eye. Abberline did. And both are long sice dead.

Based upon Abberline's reputation, career, track record, etc., that's really all I have to base my opinion on. Would it surprise me if Hutchinson was lying, mistaken, embellishing? No. Until I - personally - have something more subustantial, I don't really have firm ground upon which to stand from which to contradict Abberline.

Sam Flynn
12-23-2013, 02:53 PM
Hello, BenSarah Lewis saw someone standing outside Miller's Court at 2:30am, apparently watching and waiting for someone to come out, and as soon as this detail was publicly divulged, Hutchinson came forward
I'm not aware that it was publicly divulged - at least, not in the press. Only a few hours at most separated Lewis's statement at the inquest and Hutchinson coming forward to the police. That's precious little time in which to have decided to "insert himself" into the enquiry, and to have made up that story in all its crazy (and attention-seeking) detail.

Wickerman
12-23-2013, 04:55 PM
The only newspaper known to publish coverage of the Inquest, to the point which included the testimony of Sarah Lewis, was the Echo in their evening edition.
Publication time not known.

But still, all that was 'publicly divulged' about the loiterer, was this:

She saw a man at the entrance to the court. He was not talking to anyone.
Was he tall? - Not very - a stout-looking man. I do not know whether he had dark clothes on.
Echo, 12th Nov.

Detailed enough to put the willies up any potential suspect, wouldn't you say?

:)

Sam Flynn
12-24-2013, 04:18 AM
The only newspaper known to publish coverage of the Inquest, to the point which included the testimony of Sarah Lewis, was the Echo in their evening edition.
Publication time not known.Curses! if only we knew the time Hutchinson's statement was taken.But still, all that was 'publicly divulged' about the loiterer, was this:

She saw a man at the entrance to the court. He was not talking to anyone.
Was he tall? - Not very - a stout-looking man. I do not know whether he had dark clothes on.
Echo, 12th Nov.

Detailed enough to put the willies up any potential suspect, wouldn't you say?

:)Thus the true "willy-upping" testimony would have been what was revealed - until then, exclusively - at the inquest itself. Whether he heard it there, or read it in the evening paper, it doesn't leave much room for Hutch to get spooked or to concoct his story. (I've little doubt that it was concocted, by the way.)

Wickerman
12-24-2013, 06:54 AM
Hutchinson could hardly have shown up inside the town hall, space was cramped as it was, too risky (assuming he was guilty of anything). With Abberline present, and all the witnesses, including Lewis, he could hardly then offer the statement he would do an hour? or so later.

Incidently, the time of Hutchinson's statement is given as 6:00pm (as you know), but that is not the time he walked into Commercial St. station, 6:00pm is the time they sat down to write it up. Probably after him giving a verbal account first.
The time the inquest terminated is not stated.
The time Hutchinson walked into Commercial St. is not stated.
The time the Echo published their first evening edition, is also not stated.

Any suggestion that Hutchinson gained advanced knowledge is therefore tenuous - to unlikely, at best. Once we pursue the questions, "from who?" or "how?, we see that the argument is not sustainable by anything beyond guesswork.
Consistent with everything else aimed at diminishing Hutchinson's credibility.

Sam Flynn
12-24-2013, 07:42 AM
Incidently, the time of Hutchinson's statement is given as 6:00pm, as you know
I didn't actually, Jon - or I'd forgotten, in which case thanks for reminding me!

Ben
12-24-2013, 08:11 AM
Hutchinson could hardly have shown up inside the town hall, space was cramped as it was, too risky (assuming he was guilty of anything).

Actually, if space was at a premium and the room overcrowded (which we know it was), there was nothing problematic about Hutchinson blending into such a crowd. Have a look at some of the photos depicting the crowded nature of the Waldorf Astoria where the Titanic inquiry was held, and that should give you a reasonable idea. That said, a far more plausible explanation - one which has been argued against with a dreadful lack of success - is that he was lost in the crowd that thronged the Shoreditch Town Hall, and simply recognised that the same woman who clocked him at 2:30am on the night of the murder was due to appear at the inquest, where she would presumably divulge her sighting of the wideawake man. But there are other obvious possibilities - he could have read about Lewis' account in the evening papers, or he could have heard it via the Bush Telegraph, and if you think word of mouth didn't travel extremely fast in those days, I invite you to guess again.

Whatever Hutchinson's source and whatever the means by which he accessed it, it is far easier to accept that he must have done so somehow than it is to accept that a monster "coincidence" took place. Lewis' specific observation that the man appeared to to be waiting for someone to come out is quoted practically verbatim by Hutchinson when describing his own behaviour. The realistic and logical explanation is that he was aware of Lewis' evidence and her specific observations when he came forward, which he did very shortly after the termination of the inquest.

Consistent with everything else aimed at diminishing Hutchinson's credibility.

You should learn who to pick your fights with in future, and not be so anxious to combat me at any cost. My argument that Hutchinson came forward after realising he'd been seen at least acknowledges that the wideawake man was almost certainly Hutchinson, which you also accept. Remember? Some people don't even accept that Hutchinson was there at all, and that he lied about the whole thing, and it is generally those people who challenge my view with regard to Hutchinson recognising himself in Lewis' account. Your view is closer to mine than theirs, and yet because of your determination to undermine my observations at any cost, you fail to take this on board.

This may be a troubling newsflash for you, but the majority of people who disagree with my overall view of Hutchinson share my opinion that he probably lied.

Detailed enough to put the willies up any potential suspect, wouldn't you say?

If you're trying to pour water (and possibly scorn) on my suggestion that Hutchinson might have had something to fear from Lewis' evidence, you'd do well to understand that a weak description doesn't equate to a weak sighting. A witness may well give a vague description of an individual, and yet still be able to recognise him or her again.

Hi Gareth,

As the forgoing illustrates, I respectfully disagree and fondly recall those pre-2011 days when we saw eye-to-eye on this one. :)

Regards,
Ben

Ben
12-24-2013, 08:36 AM
Thanks for your reply, Patrick, which I don't consider remotely "boring"!

Based upon Abberline's reputation, career, track record, etc., that's really all I have to base my opinion on.

I would agree with you were it not for the fact that:

(a) The "very reduced importance", "considerably discounted", and ultimately "discredited" nature of Hutchinson's account indicates very strongly that Abberline's initial endorsement was subsequently revised.

(b) Abberline's report was submitted before there was any opportunity to investigate Hutchinson's claims.

(c) Any assessment based on body language is notoriously unreliable according to today's leading experts, including David Canter, who considered in "nonsense" to deduce a witness or suspect's credibility on such a basis.

All the best,
Ben

Wickerman
12-24-2013, 09:41 AM
There was no crowd to blend in to.

"The room in which the inquest was held was small and very few of the general public were admitted."
St. James Gazette, 13th Nov.

The few members of the public would stand apart from the press, on the one side, and the jury on the other.

No, no Hutchinson here.

Ben
12-24-2013, 09:45 AM
There was no crowd to blend in to

Yes, there was.

Have a look at this from the Evening News, 12th November:

"The Court room was inconveniently small, and was overcrowded".

Given the size of the room, it isn't surprising that few of the general public were admitted, but if Hutchinson was one of those few, he certainly did have a crowd to blend into.

No, no Hutchinson here.

Yes, very possibly Hutchinson here.

Wickerman
12-24-2013, 09:46 AM
This may be a troubling newsflash for you, but the majority of people who disagree with my overall view of Hutchinson share my opinion that he probably lied.

It's the 'probably', that sets them apart from you.
If theorists would limit their accusations to 'probably/possibly' then much of the vigorous exchanges would melt away.

Wickerman
12-24-2013, 09:50 AM
Yes, there was.

Have a look at this from the Evening News, 12th November:

"The Court room was inconveniently small, and was overcrowded".

Given the size of the room, it isn't surprising that few of the general public were admitted, but if Hutchinson was one of those few, he certainly did have a crowd to blend into.



Yes, very possibly Hutchinson here.

It wasn't overcrowded with the public, it was the army of pressmen.

"A mahogany table, drawn up against the windows, was laden with hats, black bags and papers, belonging to the army of reporters."
Pall Mall Gazette, 12th Nov.