PDA

View Full Version : An hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect


SirJohnFalstaff
12-26-2015, 05:11 PM
Something hit me recently, and I'm probably not the first to come with the idea.

I've been reading The Darkest Streets and The Worst Street in London, just to get some context about pauperism in late Victorian London.

A few things jumped in front of my eyes (unfortunately, I can't remember to which of the two books they relate)
- Garotting: There were several cases where prostitutes would lure men only for them to be welcomed by muggers who would take their money, jewelry and clothes.
- Spitalfields: There was even more resentment in Spitalfields against the Jewish community, mostly because many buildings were bought in the Southern part to be torned down, and housing for Jewish families built instead.
- Dorset Street: people were very suspicious of rich/higher class people on Dorset Street.

Now, let's imagine that Hutchinson did say the truth. Would it be far fetched to think that the reason he described the man so well, and waited in front of Miller's Court was because he had the intention of robbing him?

Which also makes him reluctant to talk to police until he hears that someone spotted him and gave description at the inquest.

Not saying he was a recurring criminal.

MysterySinger
12-26-2015, 05:25 PM
I'm not sure that a meaningful motive has been established for Hutch in killing MJK. He could have been a vagrant - he certainly seemed to have a tendency to walk the streets at night and maybe was just looking for some shelter. Accomplice - who knows?

Wickerman
12-26-2015, 06:01 PM
Now, let's imagine that Hutchinson did say the truth. Would it be far fetched to think that the reason he described the man so well, and waited in front of Miller's Court was because he had the intention of robbing him?

That interpretation has been put forward before. Which cannot be ruled out if Hutch had simply lost patience after nearly an hour and then left to seek his fortune elsewhere.
That possibility does not make him the killer of Mary Kelly though.

The suggestion also assumes robbery was his motive, and Mary had nothing worth stealing, unless we are supposed to entertain the idea he killed her for the 6d(?) she may have earned by servicing Astrachan?

Which also makes him reluctant to talk to police until he hears that someone spotted him and gave description at the inquest.


Not really, the description given of the loiterer is not sufficiently unique to identify anyone in particular.

Ben
12-26-2015, 07:15 PM
Hi SirJohn,

Would it be far fetched to think that the reason he described the man so well, and waited in front of Miller's Court was because he had the intention of robbing him?

Yes, it would be deeply far-fetched because it would require extreme stupidity on the part of both Hutchinson and Astrakhan. If the former wished to conceal his secret "robbing" motive, why risk creating suspicion by drawing attention to such expensive clothes and accessories? Such was the reputation of that part of Spitalfields during that period in history, it would require a level of imprudence as yet unknown to civilisation to wander into that environment bedecked in a "thick gold watch chain" that somehow managed to reveal itself under two coats in the darkness of a London Street at night.

Hutchinson's statement was very quickly discredited following further "investigations" by the police, and the Astrakhan suspect was evidently not considered a potential "ripper".

None of which addresses the question of Hutchinson's own potential culpability, and I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to understand why the proposal is supposed to "discard him as a suspect". Obviously, if any one of the proposed candidates was engaging in some form of activity other than brutal murder at a time when the murders in question were supposed to have been committed, they are innocent pf those murders. If Druitt was sound asleep in Dorset in the small hours of 31st August, he didn't kill Nichols. If Tumblety was spending time with a young man in Kensington on 7th September, he didn't kill Chapman. And yes, if Hutchinson was loitering outside Kelly's flat with the intent of robbing her secretly murderous pretend-client in the small hours of the 9th November, then he didn't kill Kelly.

You'll note, though, that only the last mentioned was in the right place at the right time.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
12-26-2015, 08:09 PM
Not really, the description given of the loiterer is not sufficiently unique to identify anyone in particular.

It doesn't need to have been.

The fact that you can't describe someone very well doesn't mean you're incapable of recognising him or her again.

Wickerman
12-26-2015, 09:14 PM
To recognise his features she would have to have seen his features. Lewis said she couldn't describe him, no age, facial hair, height, complexion, nothing to assist in recognition.

Ben
12-27-2015, 05:23 AM
Once again (in fact, probably many more times), she told police that she could not describe him, not that she didn't see his face. In addition, Lawende's description had been deliberately suppressed at the Eddowes inquest. If Hutchinson was aware of this ploy from following inquest press coverage, he might have assumed that Lewis' seemingly vague description was another example of it.

Wickerman
12-27-2015, 07:12 AM
Ah, so now she saw his face but couldn't describe what she saw.....?
Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Lawende's description was requested to be suppressed, Lewis's was not.

Ben
12-27-2015, 07:28 AM
Ah, so now she saw his face but couldn't describe what she saw.....?

Either that or she sensibly decided that "bloke with moustache" would not have helped the police much.

Lawende's description was requested to be suppressed, Lewis's was not.

Which, from the perspective of an avid follower of the inquest proceedings, could just as easily imply that the police decided not to advertised the "suppression" on the latter occasion.

Wickerman
12-27-2015, 09:15 AM
Or maybe the more likely solution is a modern theorist, who makes it up as he goes....

SirJohnFalstaff
12-27-2015, 11:12 AM
Hi SirJohn,



Yes, it would be deeply far-fetched because it would require extreme stupidity on the part of both Hutchinson and Astrakhan. If the former wished to conceal his secret "robbing" motive, why risk creating suspicion by drawing attention to such expensive clothes and accessories?

Yeah, but think about the timeline. Astrakan man wasn't robbed, and Hutchinson went to the police a few days later.
Still supposing that Hutch is right, that he did know MJK, then he had plenty of time to ponder about the risk of people suspecting him of being a criminal or help finding the murderer of MJK/ clearing him out of the murder inquiry.

Garry Wroe
12-27-2015, 04:37 PM
To recognise his features she would have to have seen his features. Lewis said she couldn't describe him, no age, facial hair, height, complexion, nothing to assist in recognition.
Research literature from within psychology abounds with examples of test subjects seeing but not remembering. It was also established long ago that human recognition far outperforms recall. The modern cognitive interview was evolved to overcome such problems, with the result that it has become perhaps the single most effective technique in the area of eyewitness information elicitition.

Wickerman
12-27-2015, 05:32 PM
The argument presupposes that Hutchinson had to come forward or suspicions about his presence in the vicinity of the murder could cause trouble for him.

Lawende did not come forward, the police had to track him down. The authorities had to locate many witnesses. So the presupposition against Hutchinson quite predictably fails to convince, which makes this could-she or couldn't-she, recognise him rather mute.

Garry Wroe
12-28-2015, 04:55 PM
Smoke and mirrors. Read your quotation and my response to it.

caz
01-04-2016, 08:39 AM
The argument presupposes that Hutchinson had to come forward or suspicions about his presence in the vicinity of the murder could cause trouble for him.

Lawende did not come forward, the police had to track him down. The authorities had to locate many witnesses. So the presupposition against Hutchinson quite predictably fails to convince, which makes this could-she or couldn't-she, recognise him rather mute.

Hi Jon,

Blotchy chose to stay well away, which is understandable because he was definitely seen going into the room with the victim. He had to rely on Mrs Cox not seeing him again, recognising him and screaming for the police. It must have suited him down to the ground to have someone like Hutch come forward and put Mary back on the streets after his own encounter, and with a man who could not have looked more different. I still wonder if this was no coincidence but a nice little earner for Hutch. He and Blotchy could have known one another and been regular visitors to Dorset Street.

The trouble for Hutch, if he did know Mary and Miller's Court reasonably well, and is meant to have entered the room uninvited and killed her some time after Blotchy had left, is that he could not have been 100% certain that nobody could have watched him entering or leaving, and perhaps even recognised him. If he came forward because he considered Sarah Lewis to be a potentially dangerous witness, he took a risk that nobody else had seen him doing something more directly incriminating, eg while his attention was fully on gaining entry.

On the other hand, if Hutch was indeed hanging around hoping to mug Mary's latest client as he left, and possibly end up in her bed as a bonus, his reluctance to come forward straight away would have been understandable, even though he must have realised the man was very possibly the maniac and needed to be stopped. I can also see why Hutch might big up the man's bling in case he was forced to admit his real motives for following the couple. His 45-minute wait would look all the more credible if his target appeared to be of above average means for the district.

Love,

Caz
X

SirJohnFalstaff
01-04-2016, 08:47 AM
That possibility does not make him the killer of Mary Kelly though.



I never implied that Hutch could have killed MJK. Au contraire, the hypothesis put him there for another reason, one he could be reluctant to admit.

SirJohnFalstaff
01-04-2016, 08:49 AM
On the other hand, if Hutch was indeed hanging around hoping to mug Mary's latest client as he left, and possibly end up in her bed as a bonus, his reluctance to come forward straight away would have been understandable, even though he must have realised the man was very possibly the maniac and needed to be stopped. I can also see why Hutch might big up the man's bling in case he was forced to admit his real motives for following the couple. His 45-minute wait would look all the more credible if his target appeared to be of above average means for the district.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks. You resumed my train of thoughts more eloquently that I could.
(sorry for grammar, not English speaking, and didn't have my coffee yet.)

caz
01-04-2016, 09:01 AM
I'm not sure that a meaningful motive has been established for Hutch in killing MJK. He could have been a vagrant - he certainly seemed to have a tendency to walk the streets at night and maybe was just looking for some shelter. Accomplice - who knows?

Hi Mystery,

There can be no meaningful motive for Hutch killing MJK if he was the ripper. Serial killers do not need a tangible motive to do what they do, and they also tend to be highly resourceful, so they can keep on feeding their habit. I do wonder how many uncaught/unidentified serial killers have seriously struggled to earn, or at the very least beg, steal or borrow enough for the daily creature comforts that would allow them the luxury of murdering women without a farthing to call their own.

Love,

Caz
X

John G
01-04-2016, 09:21 AM
Of course, Hutchinson could have killed MJK, i.e. on the basis that he claimed to be near the scene of the crime on the relevant date. However, applying that logic isn't Joseph Lave a stronger candidate for Liz Stride's murder?

Thus, by his own admission he was in Dutfield's Yard, around 20 minutes before the body was found, and walked as far as the gate, i.e. close to where Stride was discovered. There was also no one to confirm what he did once in the Yard, or who he may have met.

Of course, he didn't have to come forward with the information but, given that someone may have seen him leave the club at the relevant time, he probably felt it would be too suspicious not to.

In contrast, we have no clear idea when Kelly died, so it's difficult to determine whether Hutchinson was in Dorset Street close to the time she was murdered. In fact, we have no corroborating evidence he was there at all, apart from Sarah Lewis, but she couldn't confirm the identity of the man she saw. Lave, on the other hand, was definitely in the club that night, so close to the scene of the crime.

I'm not remotely saying that Lave killed Stride, but simply illustrating that the evidence against Hutchinson seems to be extremely weak.

caz
01-04-2016, 09:25 AM
Yes, it would be deeply far-fetched because it would require extreme stupidity on the part of both Hutchinson and Astrakhan. If the former wished to conceal his secret "robbing" motive, why risk creating suspicion by drawing attention to such expensive clothes and accessories?

Hi Ben,

But can you see the difference between a secret robbing motive and a secret murdering motive? If Hutch only had the former, but feared being suspected of having the latter, he'd have wanted to make his robbery designs on Mary's client look more convincing than any designs he might have had on Mary herself.

Love,

Caz
X

John Wheat
01-04-2016, 09:30 AM
Hypothesis although I hate to use the word as I think its odds on the truth. He was a witness. He hung about Millers Court hoping for a freebee.

Cheers John

Wickerman
01-04-2016, 03:49 PM
Hi Jon,

Blotchy chose to stay well away, which is understandable because he was definitely seen going into the room with the victim. He had to rely on Mrs Cox not seeing him again, recognising him and screaming for the police.

Hi Caz.
Happy New Year.

Yes, and compare the description given by Cox, both in her police statement and inquest testimony. It wasn't only Cox who could have identified him, but anyone reading those details could have picked him out.
Yet, he stayed away, never to surface again.

That desperate argument used against Hutch' completely fails when applied to Blotchy. As it would when applied to anyone.


I still wonder if this was no coincidence but a nice little earner for Hutch. He and Blotchy could have known one another and been regular visitors to Dorset Street.

Hmm, depends on what you mean by 'regular'. We don't read of anyone claiming to know this character, or having seen him about often. I would have though some of those press hounds capable of sniffing that out.

The trouble for Hutch, if he did know Mary and Miller's Court reasonably well,...

I interpret it as him having known her years ago, not that he knew her now, nor Millers Court for that matter. Could be wrong, but thats how I see it.

On the other hand, if Hutch was indeed hanging around hoping to mug Mary's latest client as he left, and possibly end up in her bed as a bonus, his reluctance to come forward straight away would have been understandable, even though he must have realised the man was very possibly the maniac and needed to be stopped.

Astrachan looked him square in the face. If Hutch believed he had just stood face to face with the killer (even though Hutch said before the murder that he looked harmless), that might be good enough reason for him to lay low for a few days to think it over.

Wickerman
01-04-2016, 04:00 PM
I never implied that Hutch could have killed MJK. Au contraire, the hypothesis put him there for another reason, one he could be reluctant to admit.

Quite so, yes I understand.
There are different accusations thrown at Hutchinson by different theorists.
But I agree, he may have intended to mug Astrachan initially, at least that would justify the wait. Hutch did admit he looked harmless, perhaps what we might call, "low hanging fruit".

By the way, you asked for a copy of an article in the Pall Mall Gazette. I wasn't sure if what I posted covered what you were looking for.

Barnaby
01-04-2016, 10:58 PM
Hutch aside, good bet someone would rob Astrakhan man. Which is another reason to believe that there was nobody dressed like that in the first place; most people, including serial killers, aren't that crazy.

richardnunweek
01-05-2016, 02:50 AM
Hi .
I am totally convinced that Mr A . knew Mary Kelly, and the meeting was prearranged.
Why it was so, Is the mystery.
For the conspiracy theorists amongst us, was it intended to give the impression that she had fallen into the hands of the traditional bogey man, was the victim of Millers Court already in Room 13?
Has the sighting of a man and a well dressed woman, and a woman not so well attired, seen outside 'The Britannia ', have any bearing on this?
Did MJK, allow herself to be seen that morning, before making off, and I ask another question why?. Alibi perhaps ?
The burning of clothing, the sighting of a woman long since dead according to medical opinion, could well have happened,if the victim was not Mary Kelly.
A remark to a neighbour, that she [ Kelly] was going to ''Do away with herself', alongside telling another, ''That she had a dream that she was being murdered'', and telling Mrs McCarthy, that the ''Ripper was a concern'', along with a couple entering the court that morning, laughing at the reward poster on the wall near the entrance.
All conspiracy theorists ammunition, but is it ''Fact or Fiction''?
Regards Richard.

Rosella
01-05-2016, 05:35 AM
A lot of these things Mary was said to have talked about were told to reporters after her death who worked it up into stories riven with premonitions. I wouldn't think that threats to commit suicide would have been that uncommon among the very poor who just dragged out an existence, often not knowing where their next meal was coming from, especially when they were drinking. That doesn't have to be fiction.

I'm sure there were remarks made among Mary and her friends about JTR and how worried they were. There were probably quite a few women in the East End who had dreams/nightmares about the Ripper at the height of the terror so it wouldn't have been that unusual, it just so happened that one of them ended up a victim.

I don't think that there were JTR reward posters up on walls. As far as I remember the only reward offered was that by the MP for Tower Hamlets, but the government were very reluctant to follow in his footsteps. Therefore I do think that the couple laughing about the poster is fiction, and even if I'm wrong and my memory's failed me, there are many callous people around who joke about inappropriate subjects. That doesn't make them co-conspirators in some complicated plot.

Abby Normal
01-05-2016, 06:32 AM
Something hit me recently, and I'm probably not the first to come with the idea.

I've been reading The Darkest Streets and The Worst Street in London, just to get some context about pauperism in late Victorian London.

A few things jumped in front of my eyes (unfortunately, I can't remember to which of the two books they relate)
- Garotting: There were several cases where prostitutes would lure men only for them to be welcomed by muggers who would take their money, jewelry and clothes.
- Spitalfields: There was even more resentment in Spitalfields against the Jewish community, mostly because many buildings were bought in the Southern part to be torned down, and housing for Jewish families built instead.
- Dorset Street: people were very suspicious of rich/higher class people on Dorset Street.

Now, let's imagine that Hutchinson did say the truth. Would it be far fetched to think that the reason he described the man so well, and waited in front of Miller's Court was because he had the intention of robbing him?

Which also makes him reluctant to talk to police until he hears that someone spotted him and gave description at the inquest.

Not saying he was a recurring criminal.

Hi Falstaff
as others have put forth, the idea is not a new one and has been discussed before.

One thing to consider(and I do not believe this idea has been put forth) is that if hutchs motive was robbery, he would have to consider that Aman would have known that hutch and mary knew each other, and therefore Aman could have told the police that-putting hutch AND Mary in hot water.

Not to mention putting a serious strain on the friendship between hutch and Mary.

As in mary being pissed off at him for not only getting her dragged into it, from a police standpoint, but also for messing up her livelihood, if Aman was a client, and or if not, messing up her potential with her Aman as her friend/lover/potential sugardaddy.

Observer
01-05-2016, 07:07 AM
Shortly after the Mary Kelly murder the authorities proposed an amnesty should the killer have had an accomplice. They were obviously impressed with Lewis's loiterer, I believe they may have come to think that this man was an accomplice. Now, if they believed the loiterer to have been an accopmlice, then it follows that they did not believe that man to have been Hutchinson.

By the time of the amnesty offer I believe the police had some kind of evidence which proved that Hutchinson was on the night in question, nowhere near the scene of Mary Kelly's murder.

Abby Normal
01-05-2016, 07:12 AM
Hi Ben,

But can you see the difference between a secret robbing motive and a secret murdering motive? If Hutch only had the former, but feared being suspected of having the latter, he'd have wanted to make his robbery designs on Mary's client look more convincing than any designs he might have had on Mary herself.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Not sure what your reasoning here is. if Aman was real, and hutch saw him and mary as he said, then Aman is an important suspect and hutch an important witness. He wouldn't need to change anything about Amans appearance-because what he saw was important enough-Jack the freaking ripper! Regardless of what hutch's original intentions with Aman might have been.

Changing his appearance falsely would jeopardize any opportunity for Hutch to cash in on being an important witness.

And I also don't see why hutch need to be worried about his original secret robbing motive-how would the police be able to force him to reveal it?
Theres a million things he could have said of why he was there and following them, which would have been overshadowed by the fact that he probably saw the ripper anyway!

Ben
01-05-2016, 09:17 AM
“Shortly after the Mary Kelly murder the authorities proposed an amnesty should the killer have had an accomplice. They were obviously impressed with Lewis's loiterer”

On the contrary, Obs, there appears to have been a marked silence on the subject of Lewis’ loiterer. She wasn’t pressed at the inquest for further details about his appearance, and I’ve yet to find a single instance of contemporary speculation – from police or press – about his identity. Other Kelly-related suspects, such as Blotchy and the Bethnal Green man, were at least discussed in the papers, but we hear nothing about the loiterer; not that the loiterer himself could have bargained on that outcome.

By the time of the amnesty offer I believe the police had some kind of evidence which proved that Hutchinson was on the night in question, nowhere near the scene of Mary Kelly's murder.

But in that event, the police would have been in a position to prove the impossibility of Hutchinson's account being true and accurate, as opposed to the "very reduced importance" and "considerable discounting" that he statement was ultimately treated to.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
01-05-2016, 09:19 AM
if Aman was real, and hutch saw him and mary as he said, then Aman is an important suspect and hutch an important witness. He wouldn't need to change anything about Amans appearance-because what he saw was important enough-Jack the freaking ripper! Regardless of what hutch's original intentions with Aman might have been.

Good points, Abby.

Also, if Hutchinson was meant to have alluded to such pricy-looking accessories in order to draw attention to his secret robbing motive, it’s a wonder that Abberline didn’t cotton on and encourage him to spill the beans about his true reason for tailing the man. It was proposed a few years ago that there may have been some sort of “off the record” confession, but this makes very little sense considering that no mention of any such disclosure was made in Abberline’s internal missive to his superiors. “Off the record” does not mean concealing vital information from the police hierarchy.

Another problem - unaddressed by the "robbing" scenario - is the absurdity of anyone being so insane as to venture into that locality at that time, dressed and blinged-up in a manner that would make robbery an inevitability.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
01-05-2016, 09:20 AM
“Of course, Hutchinson could have killed MJK, i.e. on the basis that he claimed to be near the scene of the crime on the relevant date.”

No, not purely on that basis, JohnG; on the basis of a strong correlation between his decision to come forward with what would ultimately be considered a discredited eyewitness account very shortly after the termination of the inquest, and the public airing of Sarah Lewis’s evidence at that same inquest involving a man standing outside of, and seemingly monitoring, the court entrance shortly before Kelly was murdered. Unless “freak coincidence” is an appealing option, it is obvious that he learned of Lewis’s evidence, recognised himself as the man in the wideawake hat, and approached the police with the intention of “legitimising” both his presence and witnessed behaviour there.

Does that automatically make him the murderer? No, but serial killers have been known to both loiterer outside their intended crime venues and inject themselves into the police investigation with bogus information designed to deflect suspicion away from themselves, making it an irrefutably valid proposal in this case. They also tend to live relatively centrally to their chosen murder spots, which is true of Hutchinson (as it is of hundreds of other men, naturally, although none of whom can be argued to have acted suspiciously in relation to a murder scene).

“I'm not remotely saying that Lave killed Stride, but simply illustrating that the evidence against Hutchinson seems to be extremely weak”

Except you didn’t illustrate that very well at all, and I’m afraid the “extremely weak” thing is your attempted comparison with Lave, to whom none of the forgoing applies.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
01-05-2016, 09:29 AM
“Lawende did not come forward, the police had to track him down. The authorities had to locate many witnesses.”

Yes Jon, we know that, but as I hoped you'd be aware by now, it is not so much Hutchinson’s failure to come forward that might be viewed as suspicious, but rather his decision to do so only after the completion of the inquest, where Lewis’s evidence was provided. We have no idea whether or not Lawende would have come forward before the inquest had he not been “tracked down” first.

“That desperate argument used against Hutch' completely fails when applied to Blotchy.”

Now what are you on about? What argument are you referring to, who has “applied it” to Blotchy, and why would it have the slightest effect on the likelihood or otherwise of Hutchinson being a murderer? I suggest you read Caz’s post again, paying particular heed to this bit: “Blotchy chose to stay well away, which is understandable because he was definitely seen going into the room with the victim”. Just so, and a person “seen going into the room with the victim” has considerably less leverage to play the bogus voluntary witness card than a person situated across the road from the crime scene when last observed.

“If Hutch believed he had just stood face to face with the killer (even though Hutch said before the murder that he looked harmless), that might be good enough reason for him to lay low for a few days to think it over.”

…and then terminate that “thinking it over” period as soon as the inquest finishes and he realises he had been seen at the crime scene. Only then does Hutchinson decide it is high-time to divulge all about Mr. Scary-Fancy-Pants.

Regards,
Ben

Michael W Richards
01-05-2016, 09:30 AM
Just a point :recognition...if Galloway could recognize Blotchy from the description in the paper Lewis would surely be able to recognize her Wideawake Man if she ever saw him again.

Ben
01-05-2016, 09:43 AM
The trouble for Hutch, if he did know Mary and Miller's Court reasonably well, and is meant to have entered the room uninvited and killed her some time after Blotchy had left, is that he could not have been 100% certain that nobody could have watched him entering or leaving, and perhaps even recognised him. If he came forward because he considered Sarah Lewis to be a potentially dangerous witness, he took a risk that nobody else had seen him doing something more directly incriminating, eg while his attention was fully on gaining entry

It's a good point, Caz, and one best resolved by the much-discussed disparity between the account of his movements he gave to the police and the subsequent press version(s). In the latter, Hutchinson enters the court passage itself and hovers outside Kelly's window before retreating back into Dorset Street. It was Garry Wroe's suggestion that this "up the court" embellishment was included in order to account for the "unknown witness factor". It is possible, as you note, that if Hutchinson was the killer he may have been seen entering the passage; in which case he may have been conscious of his failure at the initial police interrogation to legitimise this activity, and eventually did so when interviewed by the press.

All the best,
Ben

Abby Normal
01-05-2016, 10:47 AM
Hi Jon,

Blotchy chose to stay well away, which is understandable because he was definitely seen going into the room with the victim. He had to rely on Mrs Cox not seeing him again, recognising him and screaming for the police. It must have suited him down to the ground to have someone like Hutch come forward and put Mary back on the streets after his own encounter, and with a man who could not have looked more different. I still wonder if this was no coincidence but a nice little earner for Hutch. He and Blotchy could have known one another and been regular visitors to Dorset Street.

The trouble for Hutch, if he did know Mary and Miller's Court reasonably well, and is meant to have entered the room uninvited and killed her some time after Blotchy had left, is that he could not have been 100% certain that nobody could have watched him entering or leaving, and perhaps even recognised him. If he came forward because he considered Sarah Lewis to be a potentially dangerous witness, he took a risk that nobody else had seen him doing something more directly incriminating, eg while his attention was fully on gaining entry.

On the other hand, if Hutch was indeed hanging around hoping to mug Mary's latest client as he left, and possibly end up in her bed as a bonus, his reluctance to come forward straight away would have been understandable, even though he must have realised the man was very possibly the maniac and needed to be stopped. I can also see why Hutch might big up the man's bling in case he was forced to admit his real motives for following the couple. His 45-minute wait would look all the more credible if his target appeared to be of above average means for the district.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

The trouble for Hutch, if he did know Mary and Miller's Court reasonably well, and is meant to have entered the room uninvited and killed her some time after Blotchy had left, is that he could not have been 100% certain that nobody could have watched him entering or leaving, and perhaps even recognised him. If he came forward because he considered Sarah Lewis to be a potentially dangerous witness, he took a risk that nobody else had seen him doing something more directly incriminating, eg while his attention was fully on gaining entry.

Exactly! Which is why he may have added the bit about going into the court and standing out side marys room in his later version to the press.

Ive said it before a zillion times re hutch and his changed police and press accounts-its classic guilty lying behavior:

They say something about where they were, later think that someone may have seen them somewhere else (usually much more incriminating) and then change there story accordingly.

Classic lying guilty behavior and its a very common occurance.

Michael W Richards
01-05-2016, 12:25 PM
Hi Caz



Exactly! Which is why he may have added the bit about going into the court and standing out side marys room in his later version to the press.

Ive said it before a zillion times re hutch and his changed police and press accounts-its classic guilty lying behavior:

They say something about where they were, later think that someone may have seen them somewhere else (usually much more incriminating) and then change there story accordingly.

Classic lying guilty behavior and its a very common occurance.

By the time Hutch came forward anyone who had seen anything would have already come forward..he didn't present his story until 4 days after the fact, and after most of the press have covered the murder fairly comprehensively. Ergo, when he finally came forward, if he was in fact the Wideawake Man, then he would know only Sarah saw him.

SirJohnFalstaff
01-05-2016, 12:52 PM
By the way, you asked for a copy of an article in the Pall Mall Gazette. I wasn't sure if what I posted covered what you were looking for.

Sorry about that. Howard sent it to me by e-mail. Thanks a bunch.

SirJohnFalstaff
01-05-2016, 01:01 PM
Shortly after the Mary Kelly murder the authorities proposed an amnesty should the killer have had an accomplice. They were obviously impressed with Lewis's loiterer, I believe they may have come to think that this man was an accomplice. Now, if they believed the loiterer to have been an accopmlice, then it follows that they did not believe that man to have been Hutchinson.

By the time of the amnesty offer I believe the police had some kind of evidence which proved that Hutchinson was on the night in question, nowhere near the scene of Mary Kelly's murder.
Not sure I understand what you mean.
Chronologically, the amnesty offer happened on the 10th, the inquest wasn't even open yet.

richardnunweek
01-05-2016, 01:55 PM
Hi.
If I am right then Hutchinson was not a killer. or a mugger, or a stalker, or a pimp.
He was a man living in a lodging house, living from day to day, and being approx two years younger then Kelly, had known her for the time he stated.
He met the poor lady as stated, he saw the man known as Mr A, as stated, he followed the couple as stated, and did everything he related to the police, as stated.
Hutchinson was George William Topping Hutchinson, born Oct 1st 1866, son of Reg Hutchinson..that I first became aware of in the 1970's, years before it became media knowledge.
Nobody on Casebook,takes notice of my ramblings, but I am convinced the above is accurate.
Regards Richard.

John G
01-05-2016, 02:04 PM
By the time Hutch came forward anyone who had seen anything would have already come forward..he didn't present his story until 4 days after the fact, and after most of the press have covered the murder fairly comprehensively. Ergo, when he finally came forward, if he was in fact the Wideawake Man, then he would know only Sarah saw him.

Isn't it therefore likely that he was aware that Lewis had only given a general description of the loiterer, and clearly had not made a positive identification? Therefore, if he was Kelly's murderer, would he have risked coming forward, placing himself near to the scene of the crime, when there was probably only a very small chance that, based upon Lewis' description, he would be subsequently identified.

Wickerman
01-05-2016, 04:04 PM
Hutch aside, good bet someone would rob Astrakhan man. Which is another reason to believe that there was nobody dressed like that in the first place; most people, including serial killers, aren't that crazy.

People did get mugged, and in that part of town, so therein lies the proof.
It's also true to say you can get killed crossing the road, day or night. Have you ever crossed a road?
Of course you have, it'll not happen to you though, right?
Well, that's what all those mugging victims thought.

It's human nature, to assert "nobody would dress like that because....", is rather pointless. People always have and always will.

Wickerman
01-05-2016, 04:30 PM
... Lewis would surely be able to recognize her Wideawake Man if she ever saw him again.

If Lewis could tell his age, or height, or whether he wore a moustache, sidewhiskers, beard, glasses, etc. Don't you think she would have told the police all that?

Cox described Blotchy so well because they passed within a foot or two at the end of the same passage, while Lewis saw a man about 25 feet away across a dark street, describing basically a silhouette, nothing more.

Abby Normal
01-05-2016, 04:41 PM
By the time Hutch came forward anyone who had seen anything would have already come forward..he didn't present his story until 4 days after the fact, and after most of the press have covered the murder fairly comprehensively. Ergo, when he finally came forward, if he was in fact the Wideawake Man, then he would know only Sarah saw him.

Ergo. Negative.
More like Non Sequiter.

Of course you totally missed what I said per usual.

My point was about the time period between his police statement and his press statement.

You have no idea what he thought heard or saw between that time.

And the FACT remains that he changed his story substantially, now putting himself directly outside the murdered woman's door.

Why?

One explanation i put forth is simply that he has done what thousands of criminals have done before and since. That is change his story when confronted with a different opposing explanation.

But I guess I'm not surprised you totally missed it and blathered on with your already pre conceived ideas MR as its par for the course.

Ben
01-05-2016, 08:13 PM
Hi John,

Therefore, if he was Kelly's murderer, would he have risked coming forward, placing himself near to the scene of the crime, when there was probably only a very small chance that, based upon Lewis' description, he would be subsequently identified.

A vague description by no means equates to an inabity to recognise the same person again; nondescript people are quite capable of being recognisable. In addition to which, and as I've mentioned before, if Hutchinson had been monitoring press coverage of past inquests, he would have known that Lawende's full description had been deliberately suppressed. For all he knew, the authorities may have been attempting the same ploy, albeit without advertising the fact this time, with Lewis's evidence.

All the best,
Ben

caz
01-06-2016, 05:37 AM
One thing to consider(and I do not believe this idea has been put forth) is that if hutchs motive was robbery, he would have to consider that Aman would have known that hutch and mary knew each other, and therefore Aman could have told the police that-putting hutch AND Mary in hot water.

Not to mention putting a serious strain on the friendship between hutch and Mary.

As in mary being pissed off at him for not only getting her dragged into it, from a police standpoint, but also for messing up her livelihood, if Aman was a client, and or if not, messing up her potential with her Aman as her friend/lover/potential sugardaddy.

Hi Abby,

Are you not over thinking this a bit? Isn't it possible that Mary and Hutch met up on Commercial Street, discussed the fact that they were both skint and devised a cunning plan between them, by which Mary would invite the first gullible looking customer she saw back to her place and earn herself some rent money, while Hutch would wait for him to emerge and relieve him of some more? Wasn't this a pretty common double act to pull in this neck of the woods, on anyone who appeared to be an easy target? Could this explain why Hutch didn't suspect Mary was in any danger from this man? He just didn't seem the type to cut up rough? Do you really think men who visited prostitutes and got fleeced after departing typically went to the police about it?

Hi Caz
Not sure what your reasoning here is. if Aman was real, and hutch saw him and mary as he said, then Aman is an important suspect and hutch an important witness. He wouldn't need to change anything about Amans appearance-because what he saw was important enough-Jack the freaking ripper! Regardless of what hutch's original intentions with Aman might have been.

Changing his appearance falsely would jeopardize any opportunity for Hutch to cash in on being an important witness.

And I also don't see why hutch need to be worried about his original secret robbing motive-how would the police be able to force him to reveal it?
Theres a million things he could have said of why he was there and following them, which would have been overshadowed by the fact that he probably saw the ripper anyway!

A million reasons, Abby, for following Mary and this apparently harmless, extravagantly attired man back to Miller's Court and waiting there for nearly an hour in inclement weather? I don't think so, or why did he fall back on the lamest excuse of all - that he was merely "curious" and wanted to have another gawp at the man? Sounds to me like he was reluctant to say why he was really there, but would have needed a back-up plan in case Abberline snorted: "Pull the other one, you'll stay here until you tell me why you were really there". He'd then have been forced to come up with something more plausible, which could have included a failed plan to rob a man of evident means, or a failed plan to share a prostitute's bed, or both. Neither involved committing an actual offence, and either would be a million times better than being suspected of a successful plan to murder the woman.

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
01-06-2016, 06:14 AM
Hi Abby,

Are you not over thinking this a bit? Isn't it possible that Mary and Hutch met up on Commercial Street, discussed the fact that they were both skint and devised a cunning plan between them, by which Mary would invite the first gullible looking customer she saw back to her place and earn herself some rent money, while Hutch would wait for him to emerge and relieve him of some more? Wasn't this a pretty common double act to pull in this neck of the woods, on anyone who appeared to be an easy target? Could this explain why Hutch didn't suspect Mary was in any danger from this man? He just didn't seem the type to cut up rough? Do you really think men who visited prostitutes and got fleeced after departing typically went to the police about it?



A million reasons, Abby, for following Mary and this apparently harmless, extravagantly attired man back to Miller's Court and waiting there for nearly an hour in inclement weather? I don't think so, or why did he fall back on the lamest excuse of all - that he was merely "curious" and wanted to have another gawp at the man? Sounds to me like he was reluctant to say why he was really there, but would have needed a back-up plan in case Abberline snorted: "Pull the other one, you'll stay here until you tell me why you were really there". He'd then have been forced to come up with something more plausible, which could have included a failed plan to rob a man of evident means, or a failed plan to share a prostitute's bed, or both. Neither involved committing an actual offence, and either would be a million times better than being suspected of a successful plan to murder the woman.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Are you not over thinking this a bit? Isn't it possible that Mary and Hutch met up on Commercial Street, discussed the fact that they were both skint and devised a cunning plan between them, by which Mary would invite the first gullible looking customer she saw back to her place and earn herself some rent money, while Hutch would wait for him to emerge and relieve him of some more? Wasn't this a pretty common double act to pull in this neck of the woods, on anyone who appeared to be an easy target? Could this explain why Hutch didn't suspect Mary was in any danger from this man? He just didn't seem the type to cut up rough? Do you really think men who visited prostitutes and got fleeced after departing typically went to the police about it?

No I don't think Im overthinking it. More like simplifying-youre the one coming up with very creative and complicated scenarios in which there is not a shred of evidence for.

and anyway if hutch and mary did come up with this scheme which included robbing Aman-it never materialized, when it very simply could have.

A million reasons, Abby, for following Mary and this apparently harmless, extravagantly attired man back to Miller's Court and waiting there for nearly an hour in inclement weather? I don't think so, or why did he fall back on the lamest excuse of all - that he was merely "curious" and wanted to have another gawp at the man? Sounds to me like he was reluctant to say why he was really there, but would have needed a back-up plan in case Abberline snorted: "Pull the other one, you'll stay here until you tell me why you were really there". He'd then have been forced to come up with something more plausible, which could have included a failed plan to rob a man of evident means, or a failed plan to share a prostitute's bed, or both. Neither involved committing an actual offence, and either would be a million times better than being suspected of a successful plan to murder the woman.

He could never be forced to say he was there to rob a man and as a matter of fact did use "the lamest excuse of all" for his reason to be there-which seemed to not bother Abberline at all.

caz
01-06-2016, 06:43 AM
Also, if Hutchinson was meant to have alluded to such pricy-looking accessories in order to draw attention to his secret robbing motive, it’s a wonder that Abberline didn’t cotton on and encourage him to spill the beans about his true reason for tailing the man. It was proposed a few years ago that there may have been some sort of “off the record” confession, but this makes very little sense considering that no mention of any such disclosure was made in Abberline’s internal missive to his superiors. “Off the record” does not mean concealing vital information from the police hierarchy.

That doesn't make much sense, Ben. Hutch did more than allude to the man's flashy appearance - he described it in detail. So whether it was true or not (and you don't believe it was!) and why he said it is irrelevant. It is a wonder that Abberline didn't 'cotton on' and encourage him to spill the beans about why he really tailed a man who was practically begging to be robbed. ;)

It wouldn't be 'vital' (as in relevant) information if Abberline was merely able to establish under interrogation that Hutch had been hoping to mug this man of means. He didn't mug him, but such an admission would have rung true and helped explain why he was able to witness all that he did. The brief report did not go into why Abberline believed his statement to be true. Maybe he just came across as a decent enough sort. Or maybe there was more to it than that. Either way, Abberline felt no need to elaborate, and his superiors could always have asked if they'd wanted to know.

Another problem - unaddressed by the "robbing" scenario - is the absurdity of anyone being so insane as to venture into that locality at that time, dressed and blinged-up in a manner that would make robbery an inevitability.

Whether Hutch invented the man entirely, or artificially blinged him up a bit, or described him accurately, Abberline - who was in a far better position than you will ever be to make the assessment - did not find it absurd or insane, even if he thought it would have been risky. This particular blinged-up man would also have been tooled up and well able to defend himself if he was the ripper. And no robberies would ever have taken place in this crime-riddled district if nobody with any bling or other valuables dared venture outdoors with them.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
01-06-2016, 08:16 AM
I suggest you read Caz’s post again, paying particular heed to this bit: “Blotchy chose to stay well away, which is understandable because he was definitely seen going into the room with the victim”. Just so, and a person “seen going into the room with the victim” has considerably less leverage to play the bogus voluntary witness card than a person situated across the road from the crime scene when last observed.

How much 'leverage' would Hutch have had in the event that Sarah Lewis had been so curious about her loitering man that she had secretly watched him from a window to see what he was up to, and had seen him gaining entry to Kelly's room? How could he have known otherwise, or that this part of her account, together with a more detailed description of him, wasn't being suppressed as in Lawende's case, not only to protect Lewis from a killer's revenge, but also to lull him into a false sense of security?

Of course, the fall-back position here is to argue that some serial killers get a thrill from taking exactly this kind of risk, and will walk boldly into the lion's den not knowing or perhaps even caring if the police might be holding back an incriminating witness account that corresponds with their physical appearance and attempt to clear themselves.

So would Hutch have been playing the bogus voluntary witness card for business or pleasure? Would he have felt forced into the open by what Lewis had said about him publicly, or would he have gone for kicks in spite of anything else she may have seen and told the police about privately?

Love,

Caz
X

Michael W Richards
01-06-2016, 08:33 AM
Ergo. Negative.
More like Non Sequiter.

Of course you totally missed what I said per usual.

My point was about the time period between his police statement and his press statement.

You have no idea what he thought heard or saw between that time.

And the FACT remains that he changed his story substantially, now putting himself directly outside the murdered woman's door.

Why?

One explanation i put forth is simply that he has done what thousands of criminals have done before and since. That is change his story when confronted with a different opposing explanation.

But I guess I'm not surprised you totally missed it and blathered on with your already pre conceived ideas MR as its par for the course.

Aside from your other predictable nonsense I was attempting to illustrate that whatever story he gave or modified it would only have to address the possibility of being seen by one witness.

As for the description she gave it was of a short, stout man wearing a black Wideawake, anyone have a description of George Hutchinson to compare that with? And does anyone know if this is the same George Hutchinson that appeared in Thames Court in 1887 for stealing a watch?

pinkmoon
01-06-2016, 08:44 AM
I think you should all read simon woods excellent deconstructing jack( which in my opnion is the best general.book.written about the ripper murders).The chapter about mary kellys murder will make you look at george hutchinson and the ripper murders in a totally different way .

caz
01-06-2016, 09:09 AM
Hi Caz

and anyway if hutch and mary did come up with this scheme which included robbing Aman-it never materialized, when it very simply could have.

Hi Abby,

How could it have materialised if Hutch was outside waiting for Mary to finish her part of the scheme, while the man was inside, taking his pleasure by butchering her? Hutch was hardly going to shout through the window: "Hurry up in there, will you Mary, I'm waiting to rob him as soon as he puts his trousers back on".

He could never be forced to say he was there to rob a man and as a matter of fact did use "the lamest excuse of all" for his reason to be there-which seemed to not bother Abberline at all.

If Abberline swallowed this frankly daft excuse without further question I'd be amazed, and Hutch would have been far luckier than he deserved or could have expected. If the truth was that he had hoped to rob the man, don't you think he'd have owned up to it if the alternative was to face arrest on suspicion of murder, had Abberline not been satisfied that he was telling the truth?

In fact, let's assume Hutch was the ripper and Abberline hadn't been satisfied with his given reason for waiting there so long. How do you think Hutch would have tried to resolve the situation? Wouldn't some kind of admission to a lesser wrong have been as good a way out as any?

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
01-06-2016, 09:50 AM
“It wouldn't be 'vital' (as in relevant) information if Abberline was merely able to establish under interrogation that Hutch had been hoping to mug this man of means.”

I’m afraid I strongly disagree, Caz.

If Hutchinson’s entire motivation for being in a position to witness what he alleged to have witnessed was a desire to mug Kelly’s companion, and admitted to same under interrogation, there can be no question that Abberline would have disclosed as much to his superiors in his private, internal police communication. Otherwise, he would have been withholding information that was very much “relevant”, as well as supplying bogus information to Swanson – in collusion with Hutchinson – regarding the latter’s true reason for loitering where he did, and for as long as he claimed. The reason Abberline didn’t “elaborate” on his reason for believing Hutchinson is because he couldn’t. There simply hadn’t been the time available to investigate Hutchinson’s claims before the report was submitted, which meant that his “opinion that the statement is true” could only have been a face-value, faith-based impression, and one that evidently didn’t last very long. It is likely, as you suggest, that this voluntary witness simply conveyed a favourable impression.

“Whether Hutch invented the man entirely, or artificially blinged him up a bit, or described him accurately, Abberline - who was in a far better position than you will ever be to make the assessment - did not find it absurd or insane, even if he thought it would have been risky.”

Well, the description was discredited shortly after Hutchinson first provided it, which it wouldn't have been if Abberline had continued to accept it as a valid sighting of a potential ripper. Abberline famously theorized that Klosowski the Ripper acted on an prostitute organ-harvesting commission from an American doctor, and then crossed the Atlantic to commit more crimes having failed to secure enough innards for his boss in London. That’s arguably wackier even than the notion of a ludicrously blinged-up killer.

Abberline wouldn’t necessarily have swallowed every detail as true and accurate. He might, for instance, have accepted the barebones of Hutchinson's Astrakhan man, but wondered if he might have fleshed it out a bit in his zeal to be cooperative. Equally, a person without any experience of mutilating serial killers might well have made allowances for extremes (of dress, behaviour, whatever) that they would not have extended to the ordinary person. In other words, the "extraordinary" may have been considered acceptable in the context of the real killer, i.e. a person who engages in some extreme activities might be "extreme" in other respects too.

This particular blinged-up man would also have been tooled up and well able to defend himself if he was the ripper.

That's not really the point, though. I doubt very much that the ripper went on the hunt for victims fully prepared and expecting to fend off hoards of criminals who would inevitably be drawn to his appearance. He sought to avoid those people, with the potentially disastrous consequences for his killing spree they would have if they were to take an interest, and the best way to acheive that - as well as not deterring his intended targets by looking obviously out-of-place - was to blend in.

And no robberies would ever have taken place in this crime-riddled district if nobody with any bling or other valuables dared venture outdoors with them

These valuables would have been concealed, no doubt, as opposed to paraded on ostentatious display.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
01-06-2016, 09:55 AM
“How much 'leverage' would Hutch have had in the event that Sarah Lewis had been so curious about her loitering man that she had secretly watched him from a window to see what he was up to, and had seen him gaining entry to Kelly's room?”

Well, he would have seen her looking from her window had that been the case, which we know it wasn’t.

Also, if we’re to credit him with some degree 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 anxiety, as opposed to the sort of irrational behaviour that would surely have prevented him from committing any murders in the first place.

I've suggested in the past that the killer may not have struck until well after 3.00am in order to allow time for the recent entrants to the court to settle to bed and to sleep. If the killer had been monitoring proceedings from a vantage point, as Hutchinson arguably did, this may explain the time lapse between Mary Cox's arrival at 3.00am and the cry of "murder" nearly an hour later, when the risk of window-peekers was considerably reduced.

“How could he have known otherwise, or that this part of her account, together with a more detailed description of him, wasn't being suppressed as in Lawende's case, not only to protect Lewis from a killer's revenge, but also to lull him into a false sense of security?”

Well yes, there was always that, just as there bound to have been “worst case scenarios” associated with all the other killers who inserted themselves into their own investigations, posing as witnesses, but if these men were prepared to take the gamble and risk it anyway, I don’t see why Hutchinson would not have done so if he was the killer.

“So would Hutch have been playing the bogus voluntary witness card for business or pleasure? Would he have felt forced into the open by what Lewis had said about him publicly, or would he have gone for kicks in spite of anything else she may have seen and told the police about privately?”

Either or both. He might also have considered it a golden opportunity to keep appraised of police progress. It strikes me as very unlikely that the serial killers who did approach the police primarily out of fear (at incriminating evidence) would not also have derived a “thrill” from brazenly lying and posing as an innocent party right in front of his oblivious pursers.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
01-06-2016, 10:19 AM
Isn't it possible that Mary and Hutch met up on Commercial Street, discussed the fact that they were both skint and devised a cunning plan between them, by which Mary would invite the first gullible looking customer she saw back to her place and earn herself some rent money, while Hutch would wait for him to emerge and relieve him of some more?

But what would Hutchinson's reaction have been when it became apparent to him that Kelly was reneging on the deal? Not more expectant loitering before abandoning ship completely, that's for sure. At the very least, one would expect Hutchinson to return at some point with the intention of either seeing the original plan through to completion (if the man was still there) or asking Kelly what on earth she was playing at (if he wasn't). A superior option by far to the bizarrely defeatist "walking about all night" at any rate.

Sounds to me like he was reluctant to say why he was really there, but would have needed a back-up plan in case Abberline snorted: "Pull the other one, you'll stay here until you tell me why you were really there".

I agree, and for all we know he may well have had a "back-up plan". If so, he evidently didn't need to use it because we know Abberline accepted his "curiosity" excuse, lame or not. Had it been otherwise, and Abberline had said something like "pull the other one", then yes, Hutchinson might have wheeled out a back-up excuse; "I wanted to rob the man", "I'm totally soppy for Kelly and just wanted to spend the night with her" - any variant of this and similar excuses could have been just an untrue as the original "curiosity" ploy.

All the best,
Ben

Scott Nelson
01-06-2016, 11:15 AM
Ben, that hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect, did it?

Garry Wroe
01-06-2016, 05:53 PM
It is likely, as you suggest, that this voluntary witness simply conveyed a favourable impression.
Abberline subjected Hutchinson to a standard witness interrogation, Ben. This constituted a lengthy period of questioning which encompassed elements specifically designed to trip up an untruthful witness. Whereas Violenia's responses mediated suspicion amongst his interrogators, Hutchinson's did not. It's as straightforward as that.

Ben
01-06-2016, 06:00 PM
Abberline subjected Hutchinson to a standard witness interrogation, Ben. This constituted a lengthy period of questioning which encompassed elements specifically designed to trip up an untruthful witness. Whereas Violenia's responses mediated suspicion amongst his interrogators, Hutchinson's did not. It's as straightforward as that.

That's exactly as I see things, Garry, and good to see you back here.

Ben, that hypothesis about Hutchinson that could discard him as a suspect, did it?

Not really, Scott. I got my hopes up when I read the thread's title, but what I found instead was simply an alternative hypothesis about Hutchinson that doesn't involve him being a suspect.

Garry Wroe
01-06-2016, 06:03 PM
Isn't it possible that Mary and Hutch met up on Commercial Street, discussed the fact that they were both skint and devised a cunning plan between them, by which Mary would invite the first gullible looking customer she saw back to her place and earn herself some rent money, while Hutch would wait for him to emerge and relieve him of some more?
According to his press claims, Caz, Hutchinson had seen Astrakhan loitering on the corner of Thrawl and Commercial Streets before the alleged encounter with Kelly even took place. If his intention had been robbery, why did he not mug Astrakhan when he first encountered him?

Garry Wroe
01-06-2016, 06:05 PM
Thanks, Ben.

John G
01-07-2016, 01:09 AM
I agree with the arguments that Hutchinson must have created a favourable impression with Abberline. In fact Philip Sugden put it this way: "Presumably he [Hutchinson] had a forthright manner and responded well to questions" . (Sugden, 2002).

However, what I do find strange is that, if Hutchinson was lying, why wasn't an experienced detective like Abberline able to trip him up, during what may have been a lengthy interogation? In fact, given the amount of detail he gave, particularly as regards the description of Astrachan Man, I would have thought it would be quite likely that he would have been caught out in an inconsistency. But that doesn't seem to have happened.

richardnunweek
01-07-2016, 02:38 AM
Hi.
Reason he was not caught out, was that he was telling the truth,as far as he could recollect.
Allegedly there were two men that entered Kelly's room that night..Cox's man . and Hutchinson's.
Mrs Cox version is unreliable, because of the clothing description, and a version told to her niece, which bears nothing on her statement.
But Hutchinson,always maintained the same story,even 40 years later.
We have to decide if Hutchinson's man was the killer, or a person caught up in a difficult position..?
Regards Richard,

John G
01-07-2016, 03:19 AM
I think we also need to consider the reason why Hutchinson's evidence was subsequently regarded as having a reduced importance. Walter Dew provides a possible insight into police thinking in his memoirs:

"And, if Mrs Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchinson erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe the man with the billycock hat and beared was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer. Always supposing Mrs Cox ever had seen her with a man."

Therefore, no suggestion that Hutchinson had been caught out in any great lie (Dew, of course, postulated that he'd got the date mixed up), simply that the police may have taken the view that Blotchy was very likely to have been the murderer.

I do, however, find the last part of Dew's comments interesting, i.e. the Cox reference, "always supposing Mrs Cox ever had seen her with a man." Doesn't this imply that there were at least some doubts about her evidence?

richardnunweek
01-07-2016, 04:22 AM
Hi John.
If one takes Mrs Praters account of meeting Mary at the bottom of the passage on the 8th AT 9pm , and wearing a jacket and bonnet, then taking the account of Cox'x clothing description,when she saw Mary with Blotchy, shortly before midnight, one can see they bear no similarity .
So who was mistaken.or lying.?
People will say , Mary may have returned home to change , then ventured back out.but surely unlikely.
We know Mrs Harvey left her bonnet with Mary that evening., her words were, ''I am leaving my bonnet then''..which surely puts credence on Praters account, and we know that the said Jacket, and bonnet, were burnt by the killer.
Praters description stating , that ''she was wearing a jacket and bonnet, I do not own any'',also rings true.
So it would seem, that there has to be doubt on Mrs Coxs version..if so Mr Blotchy did not exist, at least that night, she even told her niece , in the years that followed,''He was a right toff''which hardly describes the beer carrying , blotchy faced character.
If one eliminates him, we have only one other report, of a man seen with Mary, and that is Hutchinson's man..a man dressed for a morning event[ like the Lord Mayors show] rather then for a murderous bloodbath.
If we eliminate him, we are left with an obvious conclusion, Mary Kelly was alive during daylight hours,Mrs Maxwell was truthful, and not mistaken, and she met her death around two hours before the body was found.
Who killed her?
The man seen waiting outside the lodging house , seen by Mrs Lewis, who could not strike then, because she had Mr A in the room, so he waited until he saw her in the morning, and it was him that Mrs Maxwell saw talking to her around 8.45 am.
Regards Richard.

Garry Wroe
01-07-2016, 04:53 AM
I think we also need to consider the reason why Hutchinson's evidence was subsequently regarded as having a reduced importance. Walter Dew provides a possible insight into police thinking in his memoirs ... Therefore, no suggestion that Hutchinson had been caught out in any great lie (Dew, of course, postulated that he'd got the date mixed up), simply that the police may have taken the view that Blotchy was very likely to have been the murderer.
Hutchinson was a witness of such importance, John, that investigators would never have risked losing him on a whim. Dew clearly had no idea why Hutchinson had been sidelined, but this should come as no great surprise given his lowly rank at the time of the murders. Security was paramount for those leading the investigation. Thus information was passed down the command chain on a strictly need-to-know basis.

I do, however, find the last part of Dew's comments interesting, i.e. the Cox reference, "always supposing Mrs Cox ever had seen her with a man." Doesn't this imply that there were at least some doubts about her evidence?It was the same with every witness, John. Investigators could not risk placing total faith in any of their informants, irrespective of how well-intentioned or sincere a given witness might have appeared. It's called good policing.

Ben
01-07-2016, 06:02 AM
However, what I do find strange is that, if Hutchinson was lying, why wasn't an experienced detective like Abberline able to trip him up, during what may have been a lengthy interogation?

I imagine for the same reason thousands of liars have successfully duped experienced detectives over the years, John - because the liars/lies are convincing and well-presented and because the detectives aren't infallible. It is likely that after being treated to a whole host of obvious dud witnesses a la Violenia, Hutchinson might initially have seemed a breath of fresh air, particularly if he had a "forthright manner and responded well to questions"

Richard - unless you have a reliable source for that "version told to her niece", I really wouldn't assume that the real Mrs. Cox had anything to do with it. There is no reliable evidence that she ever deviated from the original account she gave at the inquest.

All the best,
Ben

Abby Normal
01-07-2016, 06:49 AM
Hi Abby,

How could it have materialised if Hutch was outside waiting for Mary to finish her part of the scheme, while the man was inside, taking his pleasure by butchering her? Hutch was hardly going to shout through the window: "Hurry up in there, will you Mary, I'm waiting to rob him as soon as he puts his trousers back on".



If Abberline swallowed this frankly daft excuse without further question I'd be amazed, and Hutch would have been far luckier than he deserved or could have expected. If the truth was that he had hoped to rob the man, don't you think he'd have owned up to it if the alternative was to face arrest on suspicion of murder, had Abberline not been satisfied that he was telling the truth?

In fact, let's assume Hutch was the ripper and Abberline hadn't been satisfied with his given reason for waiting there so long. How do you think Hutch would have tried to resolve the situation? Wouldn't some kind of admission to a lesser wrong have been as good a way out as any?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
How could it have materialised if Hutch was outside waiting for Mary to finish her part of the scheme, while the man was inside, taking his pleasure by butchering her? Hutch was hardly going to shout through the window: "Hurry up in there, will you Mary, I'm waiting to rob him as soon as he puts his trousers back on".

Your right. I forgot that we were assuming Aman was real.
But that begs the question-why wouldn't hutch, if they had this plan, find out what was going on-especially after forty five minutes? Might not it crossed his mind that something might be going horribly wrong in there? it was the height of the ripper scare after all? wouldn't he go check it out? he might catch jack the ripper and save his friend becoming a hero!

I]If[/I] Abberline swallowed this frankly daft excuse without further question I'd be amazed, and Hutch would have been far luckier than he deserved or could have expected. If the truth was that he had hoped to rob the man, don't you think he'd have owned up to it if the alternative was to face arrest on suspicion of murder, had Abberline not been satisfied that he was telling the truth?

In fact, let's assume Hutch was the ripper and Abberline hadn't been satisfied with his given reason for waiting there so long. How do you think Hutch would have tried to resolve the situation? Wouldn't some kind of admission to a lesser wrong have been as good a way out as any?

Again, I don't see any way Hutch, murderer or not, would feel compelled to admit any preconceived robbery plot. The admittance to any violence criminal intent may have made him more suspicious to Abberline.

And anyway, again, apparently Abberline had no problem either way with his "daft excuse".

But I do agree with you that it was a pretty lame excuse. I think his real intention was probably to see if he could get into marys room, for a place to crash or to hook up with her. perhaps he didn't want to admit THAT, because it would be admitting his intention to want to get into her room/bed.

caz
02-11-2016, 06:44 AM
According to his press claims, Caz, Hutchinson had seen Astrakhan loitering on the corner of Thrawl and Commercial Streets before the alleged encounter with Kelly even took place. If his intention had been robbery, why did he not mug Astrakhan when he first encountered him?

Hi Gary,

Well we don't know that the 'alleged' encounter - their meeting by chance on his return from Romford, and her request for sixpence - took place as he claimed, do we? So why would we rely on his claim to have seen Astrakhan beforehand? If Hutch and Kelly were friends, in cahoots to make some dosh out of Flash Harry, his whole account would have been suspect, from spotting the target to luring him back to her room. Whether Hutch was a murderer or would-be mugger, he would surely have bent the truth to his advantage.

If robbery had been the intention, it would have been more risky to mug this man out on Commercial Street than to let Kelly lure him with the promise of sex to the murky confines of Miller's Court.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
02-11-2016, 07:59 AM
Hi Caz

Your right. I forgot that we were assuming Aman was real.
But that begs the question-why wouldn't hutch, if they had this plan, find out what was going on-especially after forty five minutes? Might not it crossed his mind that something might be going horribly wrong in there? it was the height of the ripper scare after all? wouldn't he go check it out? he might catch jack the ripper and save his friend becoming a hero!

Hi Abby,

Well he did say he had no reason at the time to think Flash Harry might harm his friend, despite his lengthy vigil. So plan or no plan, if Hutch was not the killer it presumably didn't dawn on him that Kelly could be entertaining the man who was. If he was seen as the soft touch, easily lured and parted from his money by Kelly, Hutch would not have associated him with the recent ghastly crimes. He may have thought "Sod it, she's giving him an all-nighter. No point in hanging around any longer. I'll see her tomorrow and she can cough up a share of the spoils."

But I do agree with you that it was a pretty lame excuse. I think his real intention was probably to see if he could get into marys room, for a place to crash or to hook up with her. perhaps he didn't want to admit THAT, because it would be admitting his intention to want to get into her room/bed.

I too think that's the more realistic option, Abby. I'm sure Ben will vehemently protest, but I also believe Abberline would have questioned the seriously lame 'merely curious' cop-out, and got an admission from Hutch that he was actually hoping to share the murdered woman's bed for the night. As a friend, he may have been aware that Barnet had recently moved out, but she was also a prostitute, which would make most men - then and now - reluctant to volunteer any such admission to the police unless pressed to do so. If Hutch made an admission like this, it would have boosted the credibility of the rest of his statement in Abberline's eyes, and explained why he expressed a belief in it, while not going into chapter and verse in his brief report.

Love,

Caz
X

Michael W Richards
02-11-2016, 09:28 AM
.... As a friend, he may have been aware that Barnet had recently moved out, but she was also a prostitute, which would make most men - then and now - reluctant to volunteer any such admission to the police unless pressed to do so. If Hutch made an admission like this, it would have boosted the credibility of the rest of his statement in Abberline's eyes, and explained why he expressed a belief in it, while not going into chapter and verse in his brief report.

Love,

Caz
X

And how did we conclude that he was a friend of Mary Janes again? Only by virtue of his word, thats how. Virtue which, as we can see, is suspect. Its has as much value as a claim by him that he could fly.

Ben
02-11-2016, 10:03 AM
I'm sure Ben will vehemently protest, but I also believe Abberline would have questioned the seriously lame 'merely curious' cop-out, and got an admission from Hutch that he was actually hoping to share the murdered woman's bed for the night.

Good guess, Caz.

Although I would go further than "vehemently protesting" the idea, and dismiss it outright as an impossibility. Abberline wrote an internal, private report to his police bosses, and it contained no confession from Hutchinson that he hoped to spend the night with Kelly. That means it never happened; the only alternative explanation being that Abberline deliberately withheld information from Swanson for absolutely no reason. In fact, he would have done worse than that; he would been lying to him, since the only "reason" recorded in the report for Hutchinson loitering outside the court was that he was so surprised to see a man of Astrakhan's appearance in Kelly's company - in other words, a completely different excuse for loitering than an alleged desire to spend the night with Kelly. If you think that's too lame an excuse, then it's Abberline you'll have to find fault with for accepting it - for accept it he most certainly did.

Even if he did offer a "confession" along those lines - and he most assuredly did not - it wouldn't automatically make it the truth, purely on Hutchinson's unverified say-so.

I'm afraid the fatal flaw in any of the proposed "mugging" scenarios is they all rely on Astrakhan being a genuine entity, as opposed to what he probably was - a fabrication of Hutchinson's. They remain lumbered with the absurdity of a man dressed up in a manner that was guaranteed to attract attention from the worst possible quarters - criminals, policemen, and vigilante types; a man whose appearance recalled every spooky attribute that the unseen, uncaught ripper had been "collecting" in the press over the previous months.

If we consider the implications of the recent proposal that the two "friends" (?) conspired together to rob Astrakhan, it is inconceivable that Hutchinson would simply wander sheepishly away after Kelly welched on the deal and decided to do an "all nighter" with Astrakhan. You suggest he would have been content with a half share of the "spoils" when they met the next day, but what "spoils" are we talking about here? The pittance (relatively speaking) that Astrakhan paid for the session? Not much of a consolation prize when the original plan had been to rob the man of everything of value that he had secreted about his very incautious person - gold chains and all. I'd have been livid. No wonder he bumped her off. ;)

All the best,
Ben

Roy Corduroy
02-11-2016, 07:29 PM
Hi Ben, speaking of Aberline, a thought occurred to me as a hypothetical:

George Hutchinson, the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper, knew the Mary Kelly inquest was over and final and there would be no further sessions. He must have hung around up at Shoreditch Town Hall right till the end, or quickly heard the definitive news somehow. It's finished.

So all he had to do was fool the police when he went directly to them. He would not have to appear at an inquest because he knew there would be no further inquest sessions. Just as he had not been required to appear at any of the inquests into his other murders, some of which had several sessions stretching over a period of days.

Roy

Scott Nelson
02-11-2016, 07:40 PM
That seems reasonable, Roy. I know it's been argued for by others. Hutchinson's antecedents prior to and just after the Kelly murder have never been conclusively determined.

Wickerman
02-11-2016, 07:55 PM
The inquest is not a trial, and any witness showing up after can still face interrogation, identity lineups, and still be charged if deemed suspicious.

By avoiding the Coroner's Inquest, he wasn't avoiding anything of consequence. Kelly would still have been identified, and found to have been murdered.
The Inquest was all about the victim, not the killer.

Abby Normal
02-12-2016, 08:06 AM
The inquest is not a trial, and any witness showing up after can still face interrogation, identity lineups, and still be charged if deemed suspicious.

By avoiding the Coroner's Inquest, he wasn't avoiding anything of consequence. Kelly would still have been identified, and found to have been murdered.
The Inquest was all about the victim, not the killer.

Hi wick

By avoiding the Coroner's Inquest, he wasn't avoiding anything of consequence.

he wasn't? Sarah lewis was there.

Ben
02-12-2016, 10:36 AM
Hi Roy,

I agree with Scott; the above sounds perfectly reasonable.

It wouldn't have been difficult for Hutchinson to have ascertained that a verdict had been returned at the end of the Kelly inquest, and that there would not, therefore, be any further sittings. If Sarah Lewis's evidence had been the catalyst for Hutchinson coming forward, he would have been fairly secure in the knowledge that he would not have to face public scrutiny in court.

All the best,
Ben

Michael W Richards
02-12-2016, 11:47 AM
The inquest is not a trial, and any witness showing up after can still face interrogation, identity lineups, and still be charged if deemed suspicious.

By avoiding the Coroner's Inquest, he wasn't avoiding anything of consequence. Kelly would still have been identified, and found to have been murdered.
The Inquest was all about the victim, not the killer.

His story would make cross examination a must had he shown up Jon, and the Inquest is about how the victim died, not about the victim. Therefore, a possible murder suspect is very germane.

Wickerman
02-12-2016, 02:57 PM
Hi wick



he wasn't? Sarah lewis was there.

Hi Abby.

But who was Sarah Lewis, to him?
This woman had not told her story prior to the inquest.

Wickerman
02-12-2016, 03:22 PM
His story would make cross examination a must had he shown up Jon,

That is what a police interrogation does, they try to break him down, destroy his story with questions. Scotland Yard are more than capable of testing the witness to try shake his story.

.....and the Inquest is about how the victim died, not about the victim.

It's ALL about the victim Michael, who she was, and the when, the where, and by what means she met her death.

Sam Flynn
02-12-2016, 05:19 PM
That is what a police interrogation does, they try to break him down, destroy his story with questions.
The police of 1888, or the police of the "post-Sweeney" era?

harry
02-12-2016, 05:38 PM
Interrogation is questioning in a forcefull manner.Not recommended when dealing with witnesses, unless there is a suspicion the witness is not telling the whole truth.
Therefor Aberline's use of the word interrogation in respect of Hutchinson, is interesting.

Wickerman
02-12-2016, 05:55 PM
The police of 1888, or the police of the "post-Sweeney" era?

Pre P.A.C.E.?

Wickerman
02-12-2016, 05:59 PM
Hutchinson would be regarded as a potential suspect.
By his own admission he was with the victim shortly before her death. That is sufficient for the police to interrogate him to try break his story.

Ben
02-12-2016, 07:06 PM
Hutchinson was "interrogated" for the purpose of determining whether or not he was telling the truth, as Abberline made very clear in his report. The interrogation had nothing to do with any consideration that he might have been responsible for the crime, or else the report would have read, "I have interrogated him this evening, and I am of the opinion that he is not Jack the Ripper". It was never on the cards for the simple reason that an 1888 police force would not have entertained, for one minute, the idea of the real killer strolling into a cop shop and requesting an interview.

Was Violenia suspected of being the ripper after it became apparent that he was a bogus witness? "By his own admission" he would have been the last witness to have seen the victim (Chapman, in that case) alive, and yet we have no evidence to suggest he was ever considered a suspect, let alone exonerated as one.

Fisherman
02-13-2016, 03:36 AM
It was never on the cards for the simple reason that an 1888 police force would not have entertained, for one minute, the idea of the real killer strolling into a cop shop and requesting an interview.


So can we take this assertion of yours as definitely laying down that Charles Lechmere would never have been regarded as a suspect, since he did the exact same thing?
Does your certainty in this errand mean that we can be absolutely certain that the cops would never, not in a million years, search the registers to check the name of the carman, for example?

We keep saying that it is pretty obvious that Lechmere was never looked into, while Robert Linford tells us that the police MUST have cleared him.

But why would they make the effort of clearing him if they knew that he could never be the killer?

I realize that this is not a Lechmere thread, but I think your assertion must be looked into. When - according to you - did the police learn that people could pose as witnesses and be the killer nevertheless?

I think that you have a point - but not an absolute one. I would love for it to BE absolute, seeing as I favour the idea that Lechmere was not checked out. But I fail to see that it can be absolute. Surely the concept of people taking on a fake role would be known to the police?

Wickerman
02-13-2016, 05:36 AM
Hutchinson was "interrogated" for the purpose of determining whether or not he was telling the truth, as Abberline made very clear in his report.

That's a bit of an 'about-face' isn't it Ben?
Wasn't it you who tried to spin the yarn that Abberline didn't interrogate Hutchinson, he just told his superiors he did, to pacify them?
Or something along those lines.
Abberline lied to his bosses?
"Lies" seem to figure quite prominently in your view of the world don't they Ben.


The interrogation had nothing to do with any consideration that he might have been responsible for the crime, or else the report would have read, "I have interrogated him this evening, and I am of the opinion that he is not Jack the Ripper".

No, too blunt, besides the police did not know if the killer was "Jack the Ripper" at this stage.


It was never on the cards for the simple reason that an 1888 police force would not have entertained, for one minute, the idea of the real killer strolling into a cop shop and requesting an interview.

Ah, so you think deception was unknown in 1888, there's nothing new under the Sun Ben.

Was Violenia suspected of being the ripper after it became apparent that he was a bogus witness? "By his own admission" he would have been the last witness to have seen the victim (Chapman, in that case) alive, and yet we have no evidence to suggest he was ever considered a suspect, let alone exonerated as one.

Really?, then please remind me Ben, did Violenia claim to have seen this altercation 'before' Mrs Long came down Hanbury St., or 'after'?
And let us not forget, Violenia was not able to identify the body, Hutchinson was able.

Ben
02-13-2016, 06:56 AM
Hi Jon,

You've repeated that hoary old argument about Hutchinson becoming an "automatic suspect" many times before, and I doubt that trying it again will prove effective. It'll be tedious for me to have to type "automatic suspect" into the search engine and copy and paste my previous response, albeit less so than explaining the reality yet again using different words.

Wasn't it you who tried to spin the yarn that Abberline didn't interrogate Hutchinson, he just told his superiors he did, to pacify them?
Or something along those lines.

No, it was me who succeeded in exploring the possibility that Abberline chose his words carefully in order to convey an impression of thoroughness to his superiors; "interrogated" reading somewhat better than "had tea and scones with". I never once disputed that Abberline would have been on the alert for slip-ups and inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean Hutchinson received the harsh and brutal grilling that you seem to be suggesting.

No, too blunt

I wasn't aware that obliqueness and evasion were considered virtues for detectives submitting reports. If Abberline interrogated Hutchinson as a suspect for the Kelly murder, he would certainly have made reference to it in the report.

Ah, so you think deception was unknown in 1888, there's nothing new under the Sun Ben.

But this particular form of deception was completely unknown to the police of 1888, and was thus unlikely to have been entertained at any stage. Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary...?

Really?, then please remind me Ben, did Violenia claim to have seen this altercation 'before' Mrs Long came down Hanbury St., or 'after'?

He didn't say a single thing about Mrs. Long, who was not, in any case, considered the barometer of truthfulness against whom all other Chapman witnesses were compared. If Violenia's account was true, he would, in all probability have been the last person to see the victim alive, bar her killer; and yet when the police decided his account was not true, he did not "convert" into a suspect, and nor did Hutchinson.

And let us not forget, Violenia was not able to identify the body, Hutchinson was able.

Who says they were "able" or "unable"? That's right, the discredited witnesses themselves - a really great method of gauging truthfulness (and calpability!), that.

Cheers,
Ben

Ben
02-13-2016, 07:00 AM
Hi Fisherman,

This is a Hutchinson thread, as opposed to a Cross one, so I'll address your points briefly here, and then if you have any further concerns or objections, better to raise them in the newly created Crossmere forum.

As far as Cross being treated as a suspect is concerned, I would argue that the ball is firmly in the court of those attempting to present a case for his guilt. For instance, if you want to argue that Robert Paul was treated as a suspect (and I might be confusing you with you co-theorist here), there is no possibility - and I don't even slightly exaggerate - of Cross not receiving the same treatment. There is absolutely no way that the police would treat the second man on the scene as a potential suspect, whilst being totally oblivious to the mere possibility of the first man on the scene being responsible.

The other major problem is the "name change" business. For Cross to have had the remotest chance of avoiding scrutiny as a potential suspect, he must have been known as "Cross" at work, not "Lechmere", otherwise the deception would have been registered in no time (following either a tip-off from his work colleagues or a visit to his missus), thereby inviting inevitable suspicion. He was clearly known as Cross at work; it's an unavoidable reality if you don't want him to have been considered a suspect at any stage.

Hutchinson came forward of his own volition - something the 1888 police were unlikely ever to have contemplated the real ripper doing - whereas Cross would have been forced to don a false witness guide if, as you claim, he had been "found" near the body by Paul.

Anyway, see you on the Cross threads if have any thoughts on the above.

All the best,
Ben

Abby Normal
02-13-2016, 07:53 AM
Hi Abby.

But who was Sarah Lewis, to him?
This woman had not told her story prior to the inquest.

The woman who saw him standing there.

Abby Normal
02-13-2016, 07:58 AM
Hutchinson was "interrogated" for the purpose of determining whether or not he was telling the truth, as Abberline made very clear in his report. The interrogation had nothing to do with any consideration that he might have been responsible for the crime, or else the report would have read, "I have interrogated him this evening, and I am of the opinion that he is not Jack the Ripper". It was never on the cards for the simple reason that an 1888 police force would not have entertained, for one minute, the idea of the real killer strolling into a cop shop and requesting an interview.

Was Violenia suspected of being the ripper after it became apparent that he was a bogus witness? "By his own admission" he would have been the last witness to have seen the victim (Chapman, in that case) alive, and yet we have no evidence to suggest he was ever considered a suspect, let alone exonerated as one.

Exactly right ben.
Some people seem to have a problem with viewing things in context.

c.d.
02-13-2016, 08:38 AM
Why do people insist on making the whole Hutchinson business way more complicated than it needs to be? If we follow these basic rules it becomes much simpler:

1. Assume that the police were not complete and total idiots;

2. Assume that the police were not completely dazzled by Hutchinson coming forward and therefore did not treat him as though he were a rock star;

3. Don't get hung up on the difference between "person of interest" and "suspect";

4. Don't get hung up on the difference between "questioned" and "interrogated";

5. Understand that the police were not infallible.

Now, following these basic rules we have this scenario -- The police, not being complete and total idiots, considered Hutchinson as a person of interest due to the fact that by his own admission he knew the victim and was the last person to be seen with her.

As a person of interest, he would have been questioned. It makes no difference whether they were polite questions over tea and that he was addressed as Mr. Hutchinson throughout or whether it was a brutal hours long interrogation with numerous night sticks to his kidneys. What matters is that his answers needed to satisfy the police which they apparently did. This also implies that the police (again not being complete and total idiots) verified his answers as best they could.

Any person in the entire investigation (including Hutchinson) could have fooled the police and could have been the Ripper. That is pretty much a given. What we can reasonably conclude is that for whatever reason the police determined that Hutchinson was not involved in Kelly's death and moved on from him. We each have to draw our own conclusions from that but there is no reason to make the whole process more complicated than it already is. Calling Mr. Occam. Calling Mr. Occam.

c.d.

Fisherman
02-13-2016, 08:47 AM
Hutchinson came forward of his own volition - something the 1888 police were unlikely ever to have contemplated the real ripper doing - whereas Cross would have been forced to don a false witness guide if, as you claim, he had been "found" near the body by Paul.

All the best,
Ben

Lechmere ALSO came forward of his own volition - as far as the police knew. If the police had felt that he came forward to save his behind, he would have been turned into a suspect, right?
So there really would not be much of a difference between the two, as far as the police goes:
-Were at a murder site
-Could have come forward to be proactive
-Went to the police out of their own free will

You didn´t answer the question I put to you - would the police have cleared Lechmere, no questions asked, since he came forward of his own free will, just as you claim that they automatically did with Hutchinson?

Since the comparison is what matters here, this questions belong here and not on the Lechmere threads.

Wickerman
02-13-2016, 10:57 AM
Hi Jon,

You've repeated that hoary old argument about Hutchinson becoming an "automatic suspect" many times before, and I doubt that trying it again will prove effective.

Hi Ben.
I'm not trying to convince you, I repeat that state of affairs because that is simply the way it is.

In any murder enquiry, in the absence of any other direct witness, the two people who garner the immediate attention of police are, first the 'companion/lover/spouse', and second, any person who claims to have been with the victim around the approximate time of the death.
The last person to see her alive, in other words.

That is just simply true, therefore Barnett & Hutchinson are very high on their list. The third person would be anyone known to have threatened the victim or had argued with her. And we don't appear to have anyone to fit that description.


I wasn't aware that obliqueness and evasion were considered virtues for detectives submitting reports. If Abberline interrogated Hutchinson as a suspect for the Kelly murder, he would certainly have made reference to it in the report.

No he wouldn't, he had no cause to make accusations.
The correct terminology today would be "person of interest". A person who 'may' know more than he is telling, a person who may have had more involvement than he is admitting to. Also, a person who may have had something to gain by her death.
All these circumstances are cause for Abberline to have suspicions, not solely as the killer, but the possibility cannot be excluded.

I see your reluctance to admit to this is largely due to your limited interpretation of what 'suspect' means.
A 'Person of Interest' is one who is set apart from the general population because there are possibilities of involvement - 'suspicions' about any potential role. This is the level of 'suspicion' the police will have.

Whereas a 'suspect' is the next level up, being someone whom the police already have sufficient knowledge about to regard him as more than a Person of Interest.


But this particular form of deception was completely unknown to the police of 1888, and was thus unlikely to have been entertained at any stage. Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary...?

That is a mind-boggling statement to make.
You seem to be saying that, no-one has ever suspected that a killer could come forward posing as a witness to deceive the investigators?

Well maybe you can educate us all then. Precisely when did it first dawn on human imagination that a killer might pose as a witness to avoid detection?
Did the police have to wait for it to happen before they believed it would be possible?
Was this a collective, "Gee, who would have thought of that!!" moment?


He didn't say a single thing about Mrs. Long, who was not, in any case, considered the barometer of truthfulness against whom all other Chapman witnesses were compared. If Violenia's account was true, he would, in all probability have been the last person to see the victim alive, bar her killer; and yet when the police decided his account was not true, he did not "convert" into a suspect, and nor did Hutchinson.

Violenia heard a man & woman quarreling as they walked along Hanbury St.
So, it couldn't have been 'after' Mrs Long's story which took place directly outside No. 29, so it had to be 'before'. Therefore Violenia was not the last person to see the victim alive.

And, as it stands he must have seen another couple because he couldn't identify the body as the woman he saw.
So even if he did truly see a couple quarreling passing along Hanbury St., the woman wasn't Chapman.
As has been stated every time you bring up Violenia, there is no parallel between him and Hutchinson. This example above being just another nail in the coffin of a dead argument.


Who says they were "able" or "unable"? That's right, the discredited witnesses themselves - a really great method of gauging truthfulness (and calpability!), that.

Oh right, silly me. Both witnesses obviously tried to discredit their own stories......never thought of that!

c.d.
02-13-2016, 11:12 AM
The idea that the police never suspected Hutchinson because he came forward of his own volition is simply an opinion not an ascertained fact. It is certainly not an unreasonable assumption but it has its limits. What would happen if Hutchinson told the police that prior to that evening he had not seen Mary in over a year. They then question her neighbors and one of them tells them that they know Hutchinson and that Mary introduced him just last week. The tenant also goes on to describe overhearing a violent argument between the two of them. Does that blatant lie get overlooked because Hutchinson came forward or does he immediately become a serious suspect at that point?

The bottom line is that coming forward did not guarantee absolute immunity from suspicion. It had its limits.

c.d.

Wickerman
02-13-2016, 11:22 AM
Why do people insist on making the whole Hutchinson business way more complicated than it needs to be? If we follow these basic rules it becomes much simpler:

1. Assume that the police were not complete and total idiots;

2. Assume that the police were not completely dazzled by Hutchinson coming forward and therefore did not treat him as though he were a rock star;

3. Don't get hung up on the difference between "person of interest" and "suspect";

4. Don't get hung up on the difference between "questioned" and "interrogated";

5. Understand that the police were not infallible.

Now, following these basic rules we have this scenario -- The police, not being complete and total idiots, considered Hutchinson as a person of interest due to the fact that by his own admission he knew the victim and was the last person to be seen with her.

As a person of interest, he would have been questioned. It makes no difference whether they were polite questions over tea and that he was addressed as Mr. Hutchinson throughout or whether it was a brutal hours long interrogation with numerous night sticks to his kidneys. What matters is that his answers needed to satisfy the police which they apparently did. This also implies that the police (again not being complete and total idiots) verified his answers as best they could.

Any person in the entire investigation (including Hutchinson) could have fooled the police and could have been the Ripper. That is pretty much a given. What we can reasonably conclude is that for whatever reason the police determined that Hutchinson was not involved in Kelly's death and moved on from him. We each have to draw our own conclusions from that but there is no reason to make the whole process more complicated than it already is. Calling Mr. Occam. Calling Mr. Occam.

c.d.

Well, c.d., there is an important distinction between a Person of Interest, and a Suspect, and at one time Interrogation and Interview were different means of obtaining information.

And yes, of course Hutchinson 'could' have tried to deceive the police, what is mind-boggling is that we are being asked to believe the police were not capable of imagining this could happen.

Overall though, you're quite right, that the simple approach is normally the most likely.

c.d.
02-13-2016, 11:27 AM
Hello Jon,

As I mentioned in a previous post both a person of interest and a suspect are going to get questioned. It is also true that a person of interest can become a suspect. Sometimes the line between the two can get blurred so that it is probably best not to be too rigid in the definition of those terms.

c.d.

Wickerman
02-13-2016, 11:28 AM
The idea that the police never suspected Hutchinson because he came forward of his own volition is simply an opinion not an ascertained fact. It is certainly not an unreasonable assumption but it has its limits. What would happen if Hutchinson told the police that prior to that evening he had not seen Mary in over a year. They then question her neighbors and one of them tells them that they know Hutchinson and that Mary introduced him just last week. The tenant also goes on to describe overhearing a violent argument between the two of them. Does that blatant lie get overlooked because Hutchinson came forward or does he immediately become a serious suspect at that point?

The bottom line is that coming forward did not guarantee absolute immunity from suspicion. It had its limits.

c.d.

By far, in an overwhelming number of cases, the action of a perpetrator seen near the crime by a witness will disappear from public eyes.
Not, walk into a police station bold as brass with some ****-and-bull story, that is the stuff of fiction.

pinkmoon
02-13-2016, 12:59 PM
Its quite obvious given the time of the day and the area that hutchinson was up.to no.good prehaps he sweated for a few days then came foward rather than potentially be hunted by the police and accused of been jtr

Fisherman
02-13-2016, 01:29 PM
The idea that the police never suspected Hutchinson because he came forward of his own volition is simply an opinion not an ascertained fact. It is certainly not an unreasonable assumption but it has its limits. What would happen if Hutchinson told the police that prior to that evening he had not seen Mary in over a year. They then question her neighbors and one of them tells them that they know Hutchinson and that Mary introduced him just last week. The tenant also goes on to describe overhearing a violent argument between the two of them. Does that blatant lie get overlooked because Hutchinson came forward or does he immediately become a serious suspect at that point?

The bottom line is that coming forward did not guarantee absolute immunity from suspicion. It had its limits.

c.d.

There you go, C.D.!

Fisherman
02-13-2016, 01:32 PM
Its quite obvious given the time of the day and the area that hutchinson was up.to no.good

No. Nope. No way. That is not obvious at all. He may have waited outside to try and find a place to crash, for example. How is that being up to no good? Explain, please!

SuspectZero
02-13-2016, 02:51 PM
Apologies if this has already been fished up...

Wickerman
02-13-2016, 05:31 PM
Its quite obvious given the time of the day and the area that hutchinson was up.to no.good prehaps he sweated for a few days then came foward rather than potentially be hunted by the police and accused of been jtr

Walking the streets was not uncommon in a part of London where not everyone could afford a bed for the night.
Have you read what this part of London was like?

SirJohnFalstaff
02-13-2016, 06:14 PM
Hi Ben, speaking of Aberline, a thought occurred to me as a hypothetical:

George Hutchinson, the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper, knew the Mary Kelly inquest was over and final and there would be no further sessions. He must have hung around up at Shoreditch Town Hall right till the end, or quickly heard the definitive news somehow. It's finished.

So all he had to do was fool the police when he went directly to them. He would not have to appear at an inquest because he knew there would be no further inquest sessions. Just as he had not been required to appear at any of the inquests into his other murders, some of which had several sessions stretching over a period of days.

Roy
Except that he would have to spend the next 48hrs with two policemen, looking for Astrakan man.

harry
02-13-2016, 06:16 PM
Sgt Badham w as the first to question Hutchinson.He could have taken a written statement and allowed Hutchinson to leave,then contacted Aberline.
Why didn't he? W as it because he(Badham) suspected that the truth was not being told. Most likely.

SirJohnFalstaff
02-13-2016, 06:19 PM
Apologies if this has already been fished up...

this is interesting.

EDIT: he is already in The Suspect Guide.
http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/87.html

Ben
02-13-2016, 07:10 PM
Hi Jon,

“I repeat that state of affairs because that is simply the way it is.”

I’m afraid that’s just arrogant nonsense. But even if your comments were sincerely meant (which they aren’t), as opposed to being yet another unsubtle extension of your crusade to ensure that the ripper is a well-dressed medical man with a Gladstone bag (which it is), why would you “repeat” them? In the hope, perhaps, that I won’t do what I’ve always done when you resort to repetition, and respond with counter-repetition of my own? How do you envisage your strategy of repetition and attrition working out for you in the long run, incidentally? I’d be fascinated to know.

“In any murder enquiry, in the absence of any other direct witness, the two people who garner the immediate attention of police are, first the 'companion/lover/spouse', and second, any person who claims to have been with the victim around the approximate time of the death.”

So where’s the evidence that Joseph Lawende was grilled as a suspect and thereafter exonerated as one? Where’s the evidence that Schwartz was viewed in that light? And what of Packer and Violenia? Where is the evidence that they were ever interrogated as suspects, once their accounts were adjudged to be bogus? You won’t find any for the simple reason that eyewitnesses were not considered “automatic suspects”, just as they aren’t today. It’s perfectly simple – if you have the slightest smidgeon of evidence to suggest that the police considered Hutchinson a potential Jack the Ripper, provide it, or at the very least explain why Abberline failed to make any reference to these suspicions in his internal police report.


“All these circumstances are cause for Abberline to have suspicions, not solely as the killer, but the possibility cannot be excluded.”

The only suspicions Abberline were likely to have had regarding Hutchinson were that he may have been another fake "witness" seeking money or publicity, and the police had encountered more than their fair share of those during the course of the ripper investigation. Might Hutchinson have been considered a “person of interest” in that sense? Yes, certainly, but you can dispense with the idea that the police of 1888 ever considered the possibility of a voluntary witness being the real Jack the Ripper.

“That is a mind-boggling statement to make.
You seem to be saying that, no-one has ever suspected that a killer could come forward posing as a witness to deceive the investigators?”

Your mind must be disturbingly easy to “boggle”.

I’d hazard a guess that you were completely unfamiliar with the concept until you decided to fixate about all things Hutchinson, and don’t forget there are plenty of ill-informed people, even today, who can’t quite get their heads around the concept of serial killers injecting themselves into their own police investigations. Take your lazy, unthinking hypocrisy for instance: first you claim that everyone, including yourself, is well acquainted with the concept of killers posing and witnesses, but then you insist that real offenders would not “walk into a police station bold as brass with some ****-and-bull story, that is the stuff of fiction.” Do try to think your arguments through more carefully – why would the 1888 police jump to the conclusion that Hutchinson might have been a serial killer posing as a witness when you insist that such behaviour is the “stuff of fiction”?

Nowadays, of course, the ghoulish hobbyist need only venture into the true crime section at Wasterstone’s for ready examples of this behavioural trait (and in doing so appreciate that it is based on documented fact, not the “stuff of fiction”), but for a nascent Victorian police force investigating a brand new phenomenon, i.e. serial murder, the idea of the most wanted man in all history wandering into the police station requesting an interview with a detective must have seemed a very remote prospect indeed.

“Precisely when did it first dawn on human imagination that a killer might pose as a witness to avoid detection?”

I have no idea, and happily, that’s your problem – not mine.

I suggest that since serial murder was an unknown quantity for the Victorian police, they were very unlikely to have anticipated a strategy of subterfuge that even modern investigators find taxing to take on board. Expert criminologist and investigator John Douglas observed that a number of offenders were likely to have slipped the net this way because their pursuers did not know what to look for. Do you have any examples of serial killers pretending to be witnesses that predated 1888?

“Violenia heard a man & woman quarreling as they walked along Hanbury St.”

No, he didn’t.

He lied about doing so, according to the police. He claimed to have been in Hanbury Street in the small hours of the morning when the Chapman murder was supposed to have been committed, just as Hutchinson claimed to have been in Dorset Street in the small hours of the morning when the Kelly murder was supposed to have been committed. In neither case was the claim ultimately accepted as accurate or truthful, and in neither case was the bogus witness ever treated as a suspect. Or do you have evidence – actual evidence, as opposed to two-fold speculation – to suggest otherwise? You are demonstrably clueless on the subject of Violenia, by the way, and it’s more than a little painful to see you suggest that Violenia was a genuine witness who had seen “another couple”. In actual fact, he identified the man as Pizer, and claimed he threatened to kill his female companion by sticking his “knife in her”.

Oh right, silly me. Both witnesses obviously tried to discredit their own stories......never thought of that!

Silly you, yes, but more for misinterpreting what I'd hoped was a simple observation regarding these two discredited witnesses.

Ben
02-13-2016, 08:01 PM
“Why do people insist on making the whole Hutchinson business way more complicated than it needs to be?”

I do hope you’re not referring to me, CD.

I'm simply following the evidence, which is that the police did not consider Hutchinson a suspect, and were therefore in no position to rule him out as one. That’s what the evidence informs us, and had it been otherwise, Abberline would have related any suspicions he may still have harboured in his internal police report. The ludicrous and “way more complicated” alternative asserts - on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - that Hutchinson must have been considered a potential ripper, and must have been ruled out as one; an argument that requires one baseless speculation to support another. I’m no longer bothered if people refuse to get their heads around the common sense reality that a police force new to serial killers (and new to organised policing, for that matter) would not have entertained the notion of the real Jack the Ripper requesting an audience with the police, but let us at least address the evidence – is there any to suggest that the police considered Hutchinson a suspect? No. Is there any evidence that the police exonerated Hutchinson as a suspect? No.

“The police, not being complete and total idiots, considered Hutchinson as a person of interest due to the fact that by his own admission he knew the victim and was the last person to be seen with her”

If it’s “by his own admission” it can’t be a fact, though, can it? I might claim to have seen a pig fly, but that's not the same as "admitting" to it. It’s just a claim, and claims can be both genuine and false. Since the police had no basis for accepting Hutchinson’s claim – not an admission, just a claim – to have been out and about on the streets of Spitalfields that morning, their first task was ascertain whether or not he was being truthful about that detail. Before they could even broach the question of “were you on the streets for murderous or non-murderous reasons” they had first to tackle “were you on the streets at all”.

“What matters is that his answers needed to satisfy the police which they apparently did. This also implies that the police (again not being complete and total idiots) verified his answers as best they could”

Not at all, you mean?

This is another point that gets lost on a lot of people. The “interrogation” occurred very shortly after Hutchinson first put in an appearance at Commercial Street police station, and Abberline submitted his report to his superiors very shortly after that. I would be fascinated to know what “answers” Hutchinson could possibly have been provided that could have been verified in the space of a few hours; how he was absolved of serial mutilation murder in that tiny time-frame; and why incompetent Abberline (as per this idea) failed to make any reference to these suspicions in his police report. The report did not even contain a reference to unresolved suspicions that voluntary witness Hutchinson might be the ripper. We don’t see, for instance, “I’m of opinion that his statement is true, but over the coming days, I’d better just check that he isn’t Jack the Ripper, the very monster we’ve all been seeking for so long”.

Sorry, but poor old Occam must be turning in his grave to discover that his razor has been so inauspiciously invoked.

Another important point is that any suspicions directed Hutchinson’s way were unlikely to be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. “Where were you at the time Kelly was murdered, Hutchinson?”, “Walking about on my own sir”, “Ok, and what about your whereabouts for previous murders” “In my lodging house that sleeps 400 on an average night and doesn’t keep nightly registers of names from 5 weeks ago, sir”.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
02-13-2016, 08:47 PM
Reviewing the above, I feel I should apologise to Jon for the rudeness and aggression in my post. I didn't mean to lash out so techily. I'm a bit deflated, shall we say, to see those arguments resurface again, but that's no excuse for hostility.

c.d.
02-13-2016, 10:53 PM
Hello Ben,

Yes, I was referring to you when I said that people were making the whole Hutchinson business way more complicated than it needs to be. But don't take it personally because I also include pretty much anybody who regularly posts on the Hutchinson threads. I really can't keep straight on what people are actually arguing any more.

It seems to me that if, as you say, Hutchinson never became a suspect that it had to be for one of two reasons. Either the police were muy estupido or they had a reason for not going beyond considering him merely a person of interest. In other words, his answers satisfied them that he was not the Ripper.

You keep insisting that the police were so dumbstruck by his coming forward voluntarily that they couldn't see the forest for the trees. But that is simply your opinion and is not an ascertained fact. But what would happen if they caught him in numerable blatant lies and inconsistencies.? Does his "diplomatic immunity", if you will, protect him no matter what?

I know you want Hutchinson to be the Ripper. I stated in my post that that still remained a possibility so I don't know why you are taking exception to it.

The obvious conclusion is that the police did not consider Hutchinson to be the Ripper. Could they have been wrong? Sure. But that only means that they were human not that they were stupid.

Sorry, but I just can't continue to beat the dead horse that the Hutchinson threads have become.

c.d.

harry
02-13-2016, 11:59 PM
Simple it is if one understands that Aberline only gave an opinion of honesty,and this based on what information Hutchinson gave,little of which had been or could be determined to be correct,at that time.

For instance.Did AM exist?.At the time of w riting his report,Aberline could have no idea if he did e xist,and would not have been able to form an opinon until some effort had been made to find him,and this was central to everything.
Was Kelly out on the street as Hutchinson claimed?As there was no supporting evidence,how was Aberline placed to determine this.

Hutchinson made two claims only that could have been accepted that evening by Aberline.His precence outside Crossinghams,and his name and Address.

Ben
02-14-2016, 04:54 AM
Hi c.d.

Yes, I was referring to you when I said that people were making the whole Hutchinson business way more complicated than it needs to be. But don't take it personally...

I'm not offended; I just can't really see the logic in the accusation, considering that my position could not be any less complicated. The reductive essence of my argument is simply this: the complete lack of evidence for the proposed event means it probably never happened. That's what it boils down to. The "complicated" approach, on the other hand, is the one that uses pure speculation (Hutchinson was suspected of being the ripper) to support another piece of pure speculation (Hutchinson was exonerated of being the ripper).

You suggest that Hutchinson was able to to provide "answers" that "satisfied" police that he was not a serial killer, but how was "satisfaction" remotely possible when they had only Hutchinson's claims to go on? In order to be truly satisfied that a voluntary witness is not secretly a serial killer, they had to investigate those claims. As Harry points out, however, there was precious little that Abberline could have verified in that relatively short space of time between the moment he first learned of Hutchinson's existence and the penning of his report.

If the intention was to conduct those investigations at later stage, Abberline would have made reference to it in his report: "I'm of opinion that his statement is true, but I'm going to make sure he's not Jack the Ripper".

"But what would happen if they caught him in numerable blatant lies and inconsistencies?"

The same thing that happened to Emanuel Violenia when he was caught out in "blatant lies and inconsistencies" - he was discarded as a false witness who wasn't even at the scene of the crime when he claimed to be. The police had been deluged with fame seekers and money grabbers pretending to be in possession of helpful information to the ripper investigation, and the "interrogation" was for the purpose of assessing whether or not Hutchinson was another one of those. There was vast precedent for that type of behaviour, whereas there was no precedent at all for the most wanted man in the history of London waltzing into the police station.

I don't "want" Hutchinson to have been the ripper, no.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
02-14-2016, 06:26 AM
Hi Fisherman,

"Since the comparison is what matters here, this questions belong here and not on the Lechmere threads."

Yes, but I would rather this thread didn't turn into a "comparison" between Hutchinson and Lechmere. That's been done on multiple threads already, as I'm sure you'd have spotted. As I said, I have no problem with the latter pulling the wool over the police's eyes as a general principle, but the current argument for his guilt - at least as I understand it - involves a "scam" and a "name change" that had next to no possibility of being overlooked.

Moreover, if subsequent investigation cast doubt on his story (as I argue it did in Hutchinson's case), it was not as if there was the option of him being dismissed as an attention seeker. His physical connection to the crime scene - which you often cite as a plus in favour of his culpability - also ensured that any inconsistency in his story would inevitably have resulted in suspicion that he might have been involved. Hutchinson had the option of being lumped erroneously into the same category as Violenia, whereas Cross did not.

But that'll have to be us Crossmere'd out for this thread.

Regards,
Ben

c.d.
02-14-2016, 08:09 AM
Hi Ben,

I am glad you are not offended. I think I finally understand your position. You appear to be saying that since the police never considered Hutchinson a suspect (largely based on the fact that he came forward) that they never conducted the in depth investigation necessary to confirm that belief. Is that correct?

To me, its when the term "suspect" is used that things start to get complicated. Would it be better to say that there were red flags that made the police suspicious? And there are certainly gradations of suspicious.

The fact remains however that after questioning Hutchinson the police apparently moved on. There had to be a reason for that. Why would they do so? To me, it would seem that either they were incompetent or their suspicions were allayed.

The bottom line is that Hutchinson could have been the Ripper but then again so could any person that they questioned in the course of their investigation.

I guess it boils down to how much weight we are willing to give to the fact that the police moved on from him.

c.d.

Wickerman
02-14-2016, 09:10 AM
Hi Jon,

I’m afraid that’s just arrogant nonsense.
.
.
So where’s the evidence that Joseph Lawende was grilled as a suspect and thereafter exonerated as one? Where’s the evidence that Schwartz was viewed in that light? And what of Packer and Violenia?

Hello Ben.

Still struggling force a parallel I see.
Everyone familiar with this case knows Lawende was not alone, so has the built-in alibi, and neither Packer, Schwartz nor Violenia were the last to see the respective victims alive.
No parallels, hence, no argument, so nothing more to add.


The only suspicions Abberline were likely to have had regarding Hutchinson were that he may have been another fake "witness" seeking money or publicity, and the police had encountered more than their fair share of those during the course of the ripper investigation.

Abberline afforded Hutchinson considerable police attention for their suspicions of him to be merely "another time-waster", even you should see that.


I’d hazard a guess that you were completely unfamiliar with the concept until you decided to fixate about all things Hutchinson,

Coming from someone who has only "fixated" on Hutchinson for the last, how many years?, that is quite rich.


Do try to think your arguments through more carefully – why would the 1888 police jump to the conclusion that Hutchinson might have been a serial killer posing as a witness when you insist that such behaviour is the “stuff of fiction”?

They wouldn't, and I never said they would.
Anyone who claims to have been with the victim just before her death is an automatic person of interest. Exactly what his role may have been is open to question, hence the interrogation.
You are the one who is pressing to put labels on him (killer, time-waster?), not me.

You are just claiming they wouldn't suspect him of being the killer, apparently because policing had not matured enough, which I am saying is a load of rubbish. Their suspicions will have been, "is his story true, and can it be verified?".


... the idea of the most wanted man in all history wandering into the police station requesting an interview with a detective must have seemed a very remote prospect indeed.

Here you go again.
Picking one specific suspicion, and then knocking it down, whereas I am not limiting their reasons for the interrogation, he was a natural person of interest. Their suspicions are whether his story is true, in whole or in part, and if not, then.....
As it turned out, they believed him - hence, no suspicion attached.


I suggest that since serial murder was an unknown quantity for the Victorian police, they were very unlikely to have anticipated a strategy of subterfuge...

So, if this Millers Court murder was the only killing, does that mean the police would be likely to see through any subterfuge?


No, he didn’t.

He lied about doing so, according to the police. He claimed to have been in Hanbury Street in the small hours of the morning when the Chapman murder was supposed to have been committed,...

Ah, so where was Violenia then, if not in Hanbury St.?
The police never said he "lied" (there's that word again), about being there.
Violenia wasn't able to recognise the victim, and his accusation against Pizer fell apart.
No-one said Violenia was not in Hanbury St.
Another 'assumed' parallel crumbles to dust.


Reviewing the above, I feel I should apologise to Jon for the rudeness and aggression in my post. I didn't mean to lash out so techily. I'm a bit deflated, shall we say, to see those arguments resurface again, but that's no excuse for hostility.

No offense taken, but what does surprise me Ben is that your arguments have not progressed. The parallels you offer (Lawende, Schwartz, Packer & Violenia) are nothing of the sort, never were, and never will be.

Ben
02-14-2016, 11:58 AM
Hi Jon,

That's obviously nonsense about Lawende having a "built-in alibi" in the form of Levy and Harris. You may as well argue that Bonnie provided a "built-in alibi" for Clyde. No, I am not suggesting Levy and Harris were accomplices of Lawende the ripper, but for all the police knew at that stage, they could have been - thus enervating the worth of the "mutual alibi".

What's this strange, arbitrary "last person to see the victim alive" criterion for suspicion that you've decided upon, with the pretension of knowledge of actual police practices? How were the police in position to assess such a thing if they had very little idea a) if the witness was telling the truth about being there at all, and b) of the victim's time of death? According to your logic, the witness most deserving of police suspicion in the Kelly murder would have been Caroline Maxwell, whose claim, if correct, would make her the "last person to see the victim alive".

What of Israel Schwartz? There was never any reason to think that Hutchinson's alleged sighting occurred around the time Kelly was murdered (and who really knows when that was?), and yet in Schwartz's case, the doctors estimated that Stride must have been murdered within minutes of his alleged sighting.

So why does Hutchinson fulfil your "last person" criterion and Schwartz does not?

Abberline afforded Hutchinson considerable police attention for their suspicions of him to be merely "another time-waster", even you should see that.

Correction: Abberline afforded Hutchinson considerable police attention until he was dismissed as "another time waster".

Their suspicions are whether his story is true, in whole or in part, and if not, then.....
As it turned out, they believed him - hence, no suspicion attached.

I agree - hooray! He was believed at the time of the interrogation, yes, but that was before any attempt at verification could possibly have occurred. It was essentially a faith-based appraisal, and short of a crystal ball, that's all it could have been at that stage.

The police never said he "lied" (there's that word again), about being there.
Violenia wasn't able to recognise the victim, and his accusation against Pizer fell apart.

You're scaring me here, Jon

Are you even slightly serious in suggesting - and think very carefully about this - that the police considered Violenia a genuine witness who, despite providing his evidence in good faith, got the time wrong and/or accidentally identified the wrong suspect? That's your take on the Violenia episode? Really? You'll be the only person who thinks so. He happened to live on Hanbury Street, yes, but the police evidently came to the conclusion that he had invented his "sighting", possibly out of a morbid desire to view the body.

No offense taken, but what does surprise me Ben is that your arguments have not progressed.

They don't need to "progress".

They've done the job of the sorting out the nonsense perfectly well, and unless some evidence is provided that might challenge my observations - as opposed to what I'm getting here, which is yet more repetition - they will continue to do so. "If it ain't broke", and all that...

Regards,
Ben

Ben
02-14-2016, 12:09 PM
Hi c.d.

You appear to be saying that since the police never considered Hutchinson a suspect (largely based on the fact that he came forward) that they never conducted the in depth investigation necessary to confirm that belief. Is that correct?

Yes, that's more or less it, although I would add that there was only so much "depth" that any investigation could have explored, even in the very unlikely event that he was considered a suspect.

Which isn't to say the police wouldn't have continued investigating Hutchinson's story as far as possible. Indeed, the evidence is that they did precisely that, with the result being that a "reduced importance" was quickly attached to his statement. The reason cited for this reassessment was that his failure to come forward in time for the inquest undermined his credibility, but since the police were aware of this fact when they interviewed him, that cannot have been the full story. Either he slipped up when on walkabout with detectives on the hunt for Astrakhan man, or it was noted that his press interview seriously undermined his original statement.

So in answer to your question, yes, there were "red flags that made the police suspicious"; not that he might be the killer, but that he might be another time waster. These suspicions were clearly absent at the time of the "interrogation", and only surfaced the next day in the light of "later investigations". They only "moved on" from Hutchinson after they discarded his evidence as worthless to the investigation.

All the best,
Ben

Wickerman
02-14-2016, 06:00 PM
Hi Jon,

That's obviously nonsense about Lawende having a "built-in alibi" in the form of Levy and Harris.

Hi Ben.

Why would you use Lawende to back up an argument, when it is by no means certain that Lawende & Co. even saw Eddowes?
None of those three were convinced they saw the victim, and neither McWilliam or Swanson felt assured that they did.
Rather than use a 'what-if' to support another 'what-if', why don't you stick to what was established?


What's this strange, arbitrary "last person to see the victim alive" criterion for suspicion that you've decided upon, with the pretension of knowledge of actual police practices?

You can learn a lot when you are born into a police family, coupled with a natural interest in how they functioned.
You have an interest in maritime history do you not, would I be correct in assuming you have developed some knowledge?


How were the police in position to assess such a thing if they had very little idea a) if the witness was telling the truth about being there at all, and b) of the victim's time of death? According to your logic, the witness most deserving of police suspicion in the Kelly murder would have been Caroline Maxwell, whose claim, if correct, would make her the "last person to see the victim alive".

You are asking why the police would show an interest in 'the last person to see the victim alive'?
If you think I'm not correct, you can always ask a serving policeman.

Why would they suspect Caroline Maxwell?, she went on to buy milk after seeing Kelly, she came back to give hubby his breakfast. Maxwell's movements can be established by investigators.
The police need to speak with Hutchinson to establish his movements, hence the interrogation.


What of Israel Schwartz? There was never any reason to think that Hutchinson's alleged sighting occurred around the time Kelly was murdered (and who really knows when that was?), and yet in Schwartz's case, the doctors estimated that Stride must have been murdered within minutes of his alleged sighting.

So why does Hutchinson fulfil your "last person" criterion and Schwartz does not?

Any suspicion about a witness is developed by the investigator, from his attitude, his appearance, his manner - does he look nervous?, and if the investigator thinks something isn't right, they will investigate. In the case of Schwartz, they may have spoke to his wife to ask what time he came home, what he said or did, and his appearance at the time.
We do know he gave a statement to police, but we don't know if they had suspicions about him.
You are saying they didn't, I don't know how you can be so certain. We have no information either way.


Correction: Abberline afforded Hutchinson considerable police attention until he was dismissed as "another time waster".

You "believe" he was dismissed, even though there is no police record of this.
Your "belief" does not constitute a "correction".


I agree - hooray! He was believed at the time of the interrogation, yes, but that was before any attempt at verification could possibly have occurred. It was essentially a faith-based appraisal, and short of a crystal ball, that's all it could have been at that stage.

There was plenty of time to have witness statements checked, police pocket books checked. And of course the coincidental sighting by Sarah Lewis before the crime was committed.
The police only need to establish 'reason' to believe him, not 'prove' everything he says.


You're scaring me here, Jon

Are you even slightly serious in suggesting - and think very carefully about this - that the police considered Violenia a genuine witness who, despite providing his evidence in good faith, got the time wrong and/or accidentally identified the wrong suspect?

This is all we 'know' Ben.
"The result is not announced, but it is believed that he was unable to identify her. Subsequently, cross-examination so discredited Violenia's evidence that it was wholly distrusted by the police, and Pizer was set at liberty."

The fact is, the story he told did not withstand scrutiny.
Violenia gave a Hanbury St. address, so we can hardly suggest he was not in Hanbury St. It seems you are trying to insert interpretations into this story that are not accounted for anywhere.


They don't need to "progress".

They've done the job of the sorting out the nonsense perfectly well, and unless some evidence is provided that might challenge my observations


From what I read, your observations are based on nothing but guesswork. Yet, you choose to only accept "evidence" to prove you wrong.

You have it the wrong way around.
It is "evidence" that is required to form a theory in the first place.
This is what you are lacking.

John G
02-15-2016, 07:00 AM
It seems to me that it would be quite logical for the police not to regard Hutchinson as a suspect. I mean, I'm not aware of a single precedent for a murderer coming forward voluntarily, and placing themselves near to the scene of murder they had committed, when they had not been identified by a single witness.

And, if it was his intention to misdirect the police inquiry, wouldn't he have come up with a more plausible "suspect" than Astrachan Man? Also, if coming forward for elimination purposes is sufficient to make you a suspect, then isn't Leon Goldstein, with his little black bag, a more likely candidate? After all, he was seen near to the scene of a murder, during the time frame when the victim must have been killed and just prior to her body being discovered, whereas the same cannot be said of Hutchinson, i.e. because we have no precise idea of when Kelly was murdered.

However, I agree that he cannot be entirely ruled out as suspect, if only because serial killers are sometimes incredibly stupid. A good example is Peter Manuel, After committing a triple murder, he stayed in the victims house for almost a week-even feeding the family cat- before stealing the victims' car. Unbelievably, he then gave a lift to a police officer in the same vehicle, and it just so happened that this officer was investigating the disappearance of a woman that Manuel had previously murdered. He then helpfully told this officer that the police were looking in the wrong place!

Nonetheless, I tend to view Hutchinson as a bit of a romancer, in a similar vein to Matthew Packer, when he tried to convince the authorities that he'd sold rabbits to Jack the Ripper's cousin!

Ben
02-15-2016, 07:40 AM
Hi Jon,

Why would you use Lawende to back up an argument, when it is by no means certain that Lawende & Co. even saw Eddowes?

Lawende was clearly the witness taken most seriously by the police, which is why he - and apparently nobody else - was requested to examine suspects with a view to comparing them with the red neckerchief-wearing man he had seen at the end of Church Passage. I've read the arguments for dismissing the validity of Lawende's suspect - they're weak, they run contrary to the historical record, and they're usually made by those who don't want the ripper to have been a working class nobody. But regardless of your dismissals, the police clearly believed Lawende was the last person (along with his companions) to have seen Eddowes alive, which, according to your rule-book, would make him an automatic suspect in her murder.

You are asking why the police would show an interest in 'the last person to see the victim alive'?

No, I'm asking you how the police were in a position to establish who the last person was to see the victim alive in each case, bearing in mind that for the most part, they only had the witnesses' own unverified claims and uncertain times of death to go on. In the case of Kelly, and according to your interesting logic, the prime suspect would have been Caroline Maxwell, who claimed to have seen her later than anyone else. I'm quite aware that she could easily account for her movements, but according to your unique suspect-sifting criteria, she would have been first on the police list.

Any suspicion about a witness is developed by the investigator, from his attitude, his appearance, his manner - does he look nervous?, and if the investigator thinks something isn't right, they will investigate.

But if the witness doesn't appear nervous, and instead creates a generally favourable impression, what then? Does that automatically prove the witness genuine and innocent? Only in some fantasy world in which only clumsy liars exists, and where there is no such thing as convincing manipulation. In reality, however, examining body language is a notoriously unreliable barometer of truthfulness, as David Canter made clear in a recent documentary entitled "Crocodile Tears". His advice to any would-be investigator was to pay attention to what the witness/suspect is saying, not how s/he is saying it.

In the case of Schwartz, they may have spoke to his wife to ask what time he came home, what he said or did, and his appearance at the time.

You're still appear to be having trouble digesting this business about alibis, and the futility of expecting them to be reliable when extracted from a close family member. If there was ever any question of Schwartz being considered a suspect - and there clearly was not - detectives would have had more nous than to exonerate him on the basis of an alibi provided by his wife; in the same way that the Gloucestershire police didn't rely on Rosemary West's evidence to exonerate her husband.

You "believe" he was dismissed, even though there is no police record of this.
Your "belief" does not constitute a "correction".

You're doing that thing you do again - wrapping words and phrases in quotation marks to convey a false impression that they were written by your debating opponent. I never used the word "believe" in the context of Hutchinson's discrediting, and nor would I, because it is not a "belief", but an established reality. Of course, if you fancy having that debate all over again...

There was plenty of time to have witness statements checked, police pocket books checked

"Police pocket books"??

That's a brand new one, I'll give you that.

Why would Abberline expect to find confirmation of Hutchinson's story in a "police pocket book"? Which policeman are we even talking about? Sarah Lewis's "coincidental sighting" you can forget immediately. There is no evidence that a connection was ever made between Hutchinson and Lewis's wideawake man until the mid-1990s.

Violenia gave a Hanbury St. address, so we can hardly suggest he was not in Hanbury St.

I know. Don't worry; "we" are not suggesting that. "We" are suggesting that the police came to conclude that Violenia fabricated his sighting of a man threatening a woman, possibly because he wanted to gawp at a corpse, and possibly because he wanted to implicate Pizer. You're the only person I've ever come across to suggest an actual encounter took place.

It is "evidence" that is required to form a theory in the first place.

I'm not the one "forming a theory"; you are.

It is your theory that Hutchinson was considered a "suspect" or "person of interest. It is, therefore, you who "requires" evidence, and you who fails to convince by not having any.

All the best,
Ben

c.d.
02-15-2016, 07:46 AM
Hello Ben,

You make a good point in that even an "in-depth" investigation could only turn up so much information. Short of searching a suspect's dwelling and finding a diary, a knife and some organs or personal items belonging to the victim, it would seem that the best they could do would be to accumulate information leading them to conclude that it would be prudent to have that particular suspect followed in the hopes of catching him in the act. This point seems to get overlooked.

c.d.

caz
02-15-2016, 08:04 AM
And how did we conclude that he was a friend of Mary Janes again? Only by virtue of his word, thats how. Virtue which, as we can see, is suspect. Its has as much value as a claim by him that he could fly.

In case you hadn't noticed, Michael, Abby and I were discussing at that point a scenario in which Hutch was innocent, and telling the truth as far as he was able and willing.

Of course he could have been lying - about some or all of the night's events. But what we do here is to look at all the possibilities and consider which we find more plausible than others.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
02-15-2016, 08:25 AM
I mean, I'm not aware of a single precedent for a murderer coming forward voluntarily, and placing themselves near to the scene of murder they had committed, when they had not been identified by a single witness.

Actually, John, there have been several cases of serial killers (and plain old one-off killers) doing precisely that, some of which I expounded in an article I wrote for the Casebook Examiner a few years ago. I'm not overly anxious to repeat it all again here, but if you're interested, I would be glad to send to a link via PM. What I found especially revealing about the frequency with which this sort of behaviour occurs is that on one particular occasion, John Douglas, an expert on serial killer behaviour and psychology, correctly anticipated that an uncaught offender would come forward and do precisely what you described.

"In San Diego, a young woman’s body was found in the hills, strangled and raped, with a dog collar and leash around her neck. Her car was found along one of the highways. Apparently, she had run out of gas and her killer had picked her up – either as a Good Samaritan or forcibly – and had driven her to where she was found.

I suggested to the police that they release information to the press in a particular order. First, they should describe the crime and our crime analysis. Second, they should emphasize the full thrust of FBI involvement with the state and local authorities and that “if it takes us twenty years, we’re going to get this guy!” And third, on a busy road like that where a young woman was broken down, someone had to have seen something. I wanted the third story to say that there had been reports of someone or something suspicious around the time of her abduction and that the police were asking the public to come forward with information.

My reasoning here was that if the killer thought someone might have seen him at some point (which they probably did), then he would think he had to neutralize that with the police, to explain and legitimize his presence on the scene. He would come forward and say something to the effect of, “I drove by and saw she was stuck. I pulled over and asked if I could help, but she said she was okay, so I drove off.”

Now, police do seek help from the public all the time through the media. But too often they don’t consider it a proactive technique. I wonder how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for ... In the San Diego case, the technique worked just as I had outlined it. The UNSUB injected himself into the investigation and was caught."

From Douglas's book Mindhunter as quoted in Garry Wroe's Jack the Ripper...Person or Persons Unknown?

"And, if it was his intention to misdirect the police inquiry, wouldn't he have come up with a more plausible "suspect" than Astrachan Man?"

On the contrary, John.

It was Astrakhan Man's striking appearance that formed the basis for Hutchinson's whole excuse for loitering opposite the crime scene, where he was spotted - in all probability - by Sarah Lewis. Replace that striking appearance with Joe Average, and that excuse is invalided. In addition to which, he would have been aware that popular suspicions had been directed towards the medical profession and the Jewish community, and that Astrakhan's appearance amalgamated both.

"Also, if coming forward for elimination purposes is sufficient to make you a suspect, then isn't Leon Goldstein, with his little black bag, a more likely candidate?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "coming forward for elimination purposes". Goldstein specifically drew attention to the fact that Fanny Mortimer had seen a man carrying a black bag, and that he was the man in question (we don't know if his "elimination" was made complete by a concrete alibi). Hutchinson, by contrast, didn't even make reference to Sarah Lewis, which was rather a wise move if he wanted to conceal the fact that he had been spooked into coming forward by her evidence, and he certainly did not have an "alibi" for Kelly's murder.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
02-15-2016, 08:31 AM
Short of searching a suspect's dwelling and finding a diary, a knife and some organs or personal items belonging to the victim, it would seem that the best they could do would be to accumulate information leading them to conclude that it would be prudent to have that particular suspect followed in the hopes of catching him in the act.

It's a great point, c.d. and I'm glad we see eye to eye on something!

You're quite right - IF Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect, the only realistic option the police had was to keep him under discreet surveillance, Kosminski-style.

All the best,
Ben

Abby Normal
02-15-2016, 08:35 AM
Actually, John, there have been several cases of serial killers (and plain old one-off killers) doing precisely that, some of which I expounded in an article I wrote for the Casebook Examiner a few years ago. I'm not overly anxious to repeat it all again here, but if you're interested, I would be glad to send to a link via PM. What I found especially revealing about the frequency with which this sort of behaviour occurs is that on one particular occasion, John Douglas, an expert on serial killer behaviour and psychology, correctly anticipated that an uncaught offender would come forward and do precisely what you described.

"In San Diego, a young woman’s body was found in the hills, strangled and raped, with a dog collar and leash around her neck. Her car was found along one of the highways. Apparently, she had run out of gas and her killer had picked her up – either as a Good Samaritan or forcibly – and had driven her to where she was found.

I suggested to the police that they release information to the press in a particular order. First, they should describe the crime and our crime analysis. Second, they should emphasize the full thrust of FBI involvement with the state and local authorities and that “if it takes us twenty years, we’re going to get this guy!” And third, on a busy road like that where a young woman was broken down, someone had to have seen something. I wanted the third story to say that there had been reports of someone or something suspicious around the time of her abduction and that the police were asking the public to come forward with information.

My reasoning here was that if the killer thought someone might have seen him at some point (which they probably did), then he would think he had to neutralize that with the police, to explain and legitimize his presence on the scene. He would come forward and say something to the effect of, “I drove by and saw she was stuck. I pulled over and asked if I could help, but she said she was okay, so I drove off.”

Now, police do seek help from the public all the time through the media. But too often they don’t consider it a proactive technique. I wonder how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for ... In the San Diego case, the technique worked just as I had outlined it. The UNSUB injected himself into the investigation and was caught."

From Douglas's book Mindhunter as quoted in Garry Wroe's Jack the Ripper...Person or Persons Unknown?



On the contrary, John.

It was Astrakhan Man's striking appearance that formed the basis for Hutchinson's whole excuse for loitering opposite the crime scene, where he was spotted - in all probability - by Sarah Lewis. Replace that striking appearance with Joe Average, and that excuse is invalided. In addition to which, he would have been aware that popular suspicions had been directed towards the medical profession and the Jewish community, and that Astrakhan's appearance pandered to these precisely.



I'm not sure what you mean by "coming forward for elimination purposes". Goldstein specifically drew attention to the fact that Fanny Mortimer had seen a man carrying a black bag, and that he was the man in question (we don't know if his "elimination" was made complete by a concrete alibi). Hutchinson, by contrast, didn't even make reference to Sarah Lewis, which was rather a wise move if he wanted to conceal the fact that he had been spooked into coming forward by her evidence, and he certainly did not have an "alibi" for Kelly's murder.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
I absolutely agree with everything you say here.

As a point of emphasis, hutch is the only legit witness/suspect who knew the victim. NONE, nada, zilch of the other witnesses, who could have been jack the ripper, knew the victim and claimed to have been with them around the TOD.
I think this is a point that's get seriously overlooked here.

Add to that that he engaged in stalking behavior with the victim the night of her murder, MUST make him a serious suspect, regardless what the police, thought or didn't think at the time. It really is as simple as that.

c.d.
02-15-2016, 08:43 AM
Hello Abby,

But are we to assume that none of that occurred to the police at the time? And if it did occur to them, wouldn't they have acted accordingly?

c.d.

caz
02-15-2016, 08:54 AM
Come to think of it, following on from Michael's recent post, how many prostitute killers have come forward and claimed a friendly acquaintance with their latest victim, when there wasn't one at all?

Seems an odd and unnecessary risk to invite questions about a victim one barely knew, if at all. That would apply whether Hutch was the killer or an attention seeker who invented an encounter with Kelly shortly before she was killed. He'd have been better off saying he didn't know Kelly and didn't speak to her if that was the case. He'd still have a story to tell, of the flashy stranger being picked up by the unfortunate and taken to where she was later found murdered. And he wouldn't have faced as much criticism for leaving an unknown woman to her fate, then putting off going to the police about it.

If there's one thing that rings true to me about Hutch's tale, it's his claim to have known Kelly reasonably well. If this was so and he went on to kill her, he presumably didn't dare pretend she was a stranger.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
02-15-2016, 08:56 AM
Thanks, Abby - and you're spot on, of course.

What I find a bit perplexing is the sudden and inexplicable flare-up of Hutchinson threads. Normally, such a thing only happens in response to an aggressive and persistent campaign to promote a pariticular suspect, but nobody has gone out of their way to do that with Hutchinson for years. I suspect the calmer heads around here would quietly concede at least some of your sensible points and acknowledge that Hutchinson is probably one of the better bets of a bad bunch, and yet judging by the recent multi-threaded targetting of Hutchinson, anyone would think he's been made the latest Hollywood villain in the chilling new thriller "Miller's Court", starring Andy Serkis.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
02-15-2016, 09:11 AM
He'd have been better off saying he didn't know Kelly and didn't speak to her if that was the case. He'd still have a story to tell, of the flashy stranger being picked up by the unfortunate and taken to Miller's Court.

But then he would still have his loitering vigil, as witnesses by Sarah Lewis, to account for, which he would not have been able to do anywhere near as convincingly if he had claimed that Kelly was a stranger. The police would surely have assumed - even without Hutchinson saying so explicitly - that the length of his loitering was at least partially accounted for by Hutchinson having a personal connection with the victim. I take your point that his claim to have known Kelly would have "invited questions", but I don't see how they would have been difficult to field.

Gary Ridgway injected himself into the Green River Killer investigation following the murder of a woman with whom he had a "friendly acquaintance", evidently out of concern concern that an incriminating link could be established between the two. She had also been "posed" differently to the others.

Regards,
Ben

caz
02-15-2016, 09:12 AM
What I find a bit perplexing is the sudden and inexplicable flare-up of Hutchinson threads. Normally, such a thing only happens in response to an aggressive and persistent campaign to promote a pariticular suspect, but nobody has gone out of their way to do that with Hutchinson for years. I suspect the calmer heads around here would quietly concede at least some of your sensible points and acknowledge that Hutchinson is probably one of the better bets of a bad bunch, and yet judging by the recent multi-threaded targetting of Hutchinson, anyone would think he's been made the latest Hollywood villain in the chilling new thriller "Miller's Court", starring Andy Serkis.

All the best,
Ben

For my part, Ben, it's merely a case of finally having time to catch up with the Hutchinson threads from my previous visits some time last year, to read the posts I missed at the time and respond accordingly.

I can't speak for others who see a thread revived in this way and carry it on.

Love,

Caz
X

Ben
02-15-2016, 09:18 AM
I understand, Caz.

It wasn't a criticism of you personally; I was talking more about the way in which an innocent catch-up session, such as you've initiated, spirals into a repetition-fest. ;)

John G
02-15-2016, 09:20 AM
Hi Ben
I absolutely agree with everything you say here.

As a point of emphasis, hutch is the only legit witness/suspect who knew the victim. NONE, nada, zilch of the other witnesses, who could have been jack the ripper, knew the victim and claimed to have been with them around the TOD.
I think this is a point that's get seriously overlooked here.

Add to that that he engaged in stalking behavior with the victim the night of her murder, MUST make him a serious suspect, regardless what the police, thought or didn't think at the time. It really is as simple as that.

Hi Abby,

But apart from Hutchinson's own testimony is there any other evidence that he knew the victim? Moreover, as Sarah Lewis was unable to effectively describe or identify the man she saw, are we not also reliant on Hutchinson's own testimony as evidence that he was there at all?

John G
02-15-2016, 09:25 AM
Actually, John, there have been several cases of serial killers (and plain old one-off killers) doing precisely that, some of which I expounded in an article I wrote for the Casebook Examiner a few years ago. I'm not overly anxious to repeat it all again here, but if you're interested, I would be glad to send to a link via PM. What I found especially revealing about the frequency with which this sort of behaviour occurs is that on one particular occasion, John Douglas, an expert on serial killer behaviour and psychology, correctly anticipated that an uncaught offender would come forward and do precisely what you described.

"In San Diego, a young woman’s body was found in the hills, strangled and raped, with a dog collar and leash around her neck. Her car was found along one of the highways. Apparently, she had run out of gas and her killer had picked her up – either as a Good Samaritan or forcibly – and had driven her to where she was found.

I suggested to the police that they release information to the press in a particular order. First, they should describe the crime and our crime analysis. Second, they should emphasize the full thrust of FBI involvement with the state and local authorities and that “if it takes us twenty years, we’re going to get this guy!” And third, on a busy road like that where a young woman was broken down, someone had to have seen something. I wanted the third story to say that there had been reports of someone or something suspicious around the time of her abduction and that the police were asking the public to come forward with information.

My reasoning here was that if the killer thought someone might have seen him at some point (which they probably did), then he would think he had to neutralize that with the police, to explain and legitimize his presence on the scene. He would come forward and say something to the effect of, “I drove by and saw she was stuck. I pulled over and asked if I could help, but she said she was okay, so I drove off.”

Now, police do seek help from the public all the time through the media. But too often they don’t consider it a proactive technique. I wonder how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for ... In the San Diego case, the technique worked just as I had outlined it. The UNSUB injected himself into the investigation and was caught."

From Douglas's book Mindhunter as quoted in Garry Wroe's Jack the Ripper...Person or Persons Unknown?



On the contrary, John.

It was Astrakhan Man's striking appearance that formed the basis for Hutchinson's whole excuse for loitering opposite the crime scene, where he was spotted - in all probability - by Sarah Lewis. Replace that striking appearance with Joe Average, and that excuse is invalided. In addition to which, he would have been aware that popular suspicions had been directed towards the medical profession and the Jewish community, and that Astrakhan's appearance amalgamated both.



I'm not sure what you mean by "coming forward for elimination purposes". Goldstein specifically drew attention to the fact that Fanny Mortimer had seen a man carrying a black bag, and that he was the man in question (we don't know if his "elimination" was made complete by a concrete alibi). Hutchinson, by contrast, didn't even make reference to Sarah Lewis, which was rather a wise move if he wanted to conceal the fact that he had been spooked into coming forward by her evidence, and he certainly did not have an "alibi" for Kelly's murder.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Yes, I would be very grateful if you could PM me the link to your Casebook Examiner article.

Of course, Hutchinson may have failed to refer to Lewis because he was not actually there at all or, alternatively, he was there but failed to notice her.

Abby Normal
02-15-2016, 12:36 PM
Hello Abby,

But are we to assume that none of that occurred to the police at the time? And if it did occur to them, wouldn't they have acted accordingly?

c.d.

Hi CD
I honestly don't think they did. I think they believed him initially, and then came to see him as another time waster. Like Packer, Violena etc.

Abby Normal
02-15-2016, 12:46 PM
Come to think of it, following on from Michael's recent post, how many prostitute killers have come forward and claimed a friendly acquaintance with their latest victim, when there wasn't one at all?

Seems an odd and unnecessary risk to invite questions about a victim one barely knew, if at all. That would apply whether Hutch was the killer or an attention seeker who invented an encounter with Kelly shortly before she was killed. He'd have been better off saying he didn't know Kelly and didn't speak to her if that was the case. He'd still have a story to tell, of the flashy stranger being picked up by the unfortunate and taken to where she was later found murdered. And he wouldn't have faced as much criticism for leaving an unknown woman to her fate, then putting off going to the police about it.

If there's one thing that rings true to me about Hutch's tale, it's his claim to have known Kelly reasonably well. If this was so and he went on to kill her, he presumably didn't dare pretend she was a stranger.

Love,

Caz
X

I agree.
whether he was the killer or not, I think he did know her.

If he didn't know her, I think its too risky and too easy to caught in that lie.

Abby Normal
02-15-2016, 12:53 PM
Hi Abby,

But apart from Hutchinson's own testimony is there any other evidence that he knew the victim? Moreover, as Sarah Lewis was unable to effectively describe or identify the man she saw, are we not also reliant on Hutchinson's own testimony as evidence that he was there at all?

Hi JohnG

as far as I know-there is no other evidence he knew her.

But everything seems to point that he did. I just find it to a risky a lie if he didn't know her. and Plus even saying he knew her for a few years. If that was a lie, how did he know long she lived there? what if she just moved there?
hed get sussed out in a hurry.

harry
02-15-2016, 04:40 PM
Who are the 'They' that believed him(Hutchinson)?

Apart from Aberline,what other remarks,police,papers etc,signifies a belief he(Hutchinson) was telling the truth?

Today,examining the same information that was available in 1888,many disbelieve his account.

John G
02-16-2016, 01:16 AM
Hi JohnG

as far as I know-there is no other evidence he knew her.

But everything seems to point that he did. I just find it to a risky a lie if he didn't know her. and Plus even saying he knew her for a few years. If that was a lie, how did he know long she lived there? what if she just moved there?
hed get sussed out in a hurry.

Hi Abby,

Thanks for the reply, you make some good points. However, although Hutchinson said he knew Kelly for three years, did he say that she'd been living locally during that time? Of course, Caroline Maxwell also claimed to have known Kelly, but given the lateness of her sighting this is at least questionable. Moreover, Kelly had been living with Joseph Barnett for eighteen months, but he makes no mention of Hutchinson.

I've also been reading an interesting article about Hutchinson. Is it correct that he originally claimed to have been standing outside the Ten Bells when passed by Kelly and her client? The article suggests that this would make no sense given the rest of his evidence and, in his statement, Ten Bells was crossed out and replaced with "Queens Head".

However, if Hutchinson did murder Kelly, is it possible that he used a false name? My understanding is that modern attempts to identify "George Hutchinson" have proved somewhat fruitless and, given the Cross/Lechmere confusion, to what extent would the police have acted to confirm his identity?

caz
02-16-2016, 08:34 AM
The police would surely have assumed - even without Hutchinson saying so explicitly - that the length of his loitering was at least partially accounted for by Hutchinson having a personal connection with the victim.

Not sure I follow you here, Ben. The police (aka Abberline) didn't need to 'assume' anything: Hutch only had to be asked! I know how much you resist any suggestion that the reason Hutch gave for his lengthy vigil was not immediately accepted without question, even though it amounted to idle curiosity about the man. But isn't it a bit extreme to have Abberline 'assuming' his curiosity was partly because of his personal connection with the woman, rather than admit he would simply have asked for clarification if that were the case? It's this odd curiosity thing that cries out for further explanation.

Love,

Caz
X

Abby Normal
02-16-2016, 08:47 AM
Hi Abby,

Thanks for the reply, you make some good points. However, although Hutchinson said he knew Kelly for three years, did he say that she'd been living locally during that time? Of course, Caroline Maxwell also claimed to have known Kelly, but given the lateness of her sighting this is at least questionable. Moreover, Kelly had been living with Joseph Barnett for eighteen months, but he makes no mention of Hutchinson.

I've also been reading an interesting article about Hutchinson. Is it correct that he originally claimed to have been standing outside the Ten Bells when passed by Kelly and her client? The article suggests that this would make no sense given the rest of his evidence and, in his statement, Ten Bells was crossed out and replaced with "Queens Head".

However, if Hutchinson did murder Kelly, is it possible that he used a false name? My understanding is that modern attempts to identify "George Hutchinson" have proved somewhat fruitless and, given the Cross/Lechmere confusion, to what extent would the police have acted to confirm his identity?

Hi JnG

However, although Hutchinson said he knew Kelly for three years, did he say that she'd been living locally during that time

I don't think so. but that begs the question-or a question by the police-where did you know her FROM-around here or somewhere else? oops-busted.
If he didn't really know her he would have know idea where she lived over the past three years, not just locally.

I've also been reading an interesting article about Hutchinson. Is it correct that he originally claimed to have been standing outside the Ten Bells when passed by Kelly and her client? The article suggests that this would make no sense given the rest of his evidence and, in his statement, Ten Bells was crossed out and replaced with "Queens Head".




I believe the explanation was that hutch corrected himself while giving the police statement.


However, if Hutchinson did murder Kelly, is it possible that he used a false name?

Possibly, but I think that too would be risky. Also, some have put forth that Hutch was Joe Flemming (who did use George Hutchinson as a false name), Mary's ex, who used to "ill use her" and who later would up in an institution.
There are some connections/similarities there as both lived in the Victoria House, or something along those lines. I think Ben knows more about that angle.

John G
02-16-2016, 09:48 AM
Hi JnG



I don't think so. but that begs the question-or a question by the police-where did you know her FROM-around here or somewhere else? oops-busted.
If he didn't really know her he would have know idea where she lived over the past three years, not just locally.




I believe the explanation was that hutch corrected himself while giving the police statement.




Possibly, but I think that too would be risky. Also, some have put forth that Hutch was Joe Flemming (who did use George Hutchinson as a false name), Mary's ex, who used to "ill use her" and who later would up in an institution.
There are some connections/similarities there as both lived in the Victoria House, or something along those lines. I think Ben knows more about that angle.

Hi Abby,

Thanks for this. I was unaware of the Joseph Fleming hypothesis, but it certainly looks intriguing.

I agree it would be risky to use a false name, however, a number of witnesses may have done so, without suffering serious consequences: Cross/Lechmere, Lewis/Kennedy, Long/ Darrell. Perhaps it wasn't uncommon at this time for individuals to use more than one name, so it's something that the police wouldn't necessarily regard as suspicious.

Mirandola
02-16-2016, 10:47 AM
Any one may take on himself whatever surname or as many surnames as he pleases, without statutory licence.
A man may have divers names at divers times, but not divers christian names.

(Rapalje, Stewart and Lawrence, Robert L., A Dictionary of American and English Law with Definitions of the Technical Terms of the Canon and Civil Laws (3rd edition, 1997).

Under
Common Law, everyone may change his first name and/or surname as he pleases, provided
that he does not thereby intend to deceive or defraud another. A person changes his name
simply by assuming and using a new name that becomes generally accredited.

(The Protection of Personal Names under English and German Law,
Professor John Phillips)

Common Law is very clear on this; except for unlawful purposes (fraud, for example, or avoiding arrest) anyone can call themselves any name they wish by the simple process of adopting the new name in their everyday life. This obviously doesn't apply to situations where the legal name, recorded on a birth certificate (which can not be changed), is required; but for the poor labouring classes of Victorian Whitechapel such situations would be rare.

So the idea of using a 'false name' is a bit misleading; unlawful intent would need to be established - otherwise, it's just an alias or 'also known as', of which the Ripper records are full.

John G
02-16-2016, 11:25 AM
Any one may take on himself whatever surname or as many surnames as he pleases, without statutory licence.
A man may have divers names at divers times, but not divers christian names.

(Rapalje, Stewart and Lawrence, Robert L., A Dictionary of American and English Law with Definitions of the Technical Terms of the Canon and Civil Laws (3rd edition, 1997).

Under
Common Law, everyone may change his first name and/or surname as he pleases, provided
that he does not thereby intend to deceive or defraud another. A person changes his name
simply by assuming and using a new name that becomes generally accredited.

(The Protection of Personal Names under English and German Law,
Professor John Phillips)

Common Law is very clear on this; except for unlawful purposes (fraud, for example, or avoiding arrest) anyone can call themselves any name they wish by the simple process of adopting the new name in their everyday life. This obviously doesn't apply to situations where the legal name, recorded on a birth certificate (which can not be changed), is required; but for the poor labouring classes of Victorian Whitechapel such situations would be rare.

So the idea of using a 'false name' is a bit misleading; unlawful intent would need to be established - otherwise, it's just an alias or 'also known as', of which the Ripper records are full.

Yes, I'm well aware that, under English Law, a person is normally free to refer to themselves by whatever name they wish. However, as I've pointed out before, according to the Crime Prosecution Service, the current position is that if you provide false details of identity to the police or courts with the view of avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution, then that might result in a charge of perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. See:http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging _standard/

In any event, if Hutchinson was involved in the murder of Kelly, then giving a false name would be clearly risky, as such a strategy might invite suspicion.

Abby Normal
02-17-2016, 10:28 AM
Hi Abby,

Thanks for this. I was unaware of the Joseph Fleming hypothesis, but it certainly looks intriguing.

I agree it would be risky to use a false name, however, a number of witnesses may have done so, without suffering serious consequences: Cross/Lechmere, Lewis/Kennedy, Long/ Darrell. Perhaps it wasn't uncommon at this time for individuals to use more than one name, so it's something that the police wouldn't necessarily regard as suspicious.

Re flemming/hutch. I believe in Bens article. intriguing idea.

MysterySinger
02-17-2016, 12:04 PM
I like the Fleming/Hutch connection too. How do we know Fleming used the name of George Hutchinson on occasion? Also did he have a sister in Romford?

Ben
02-18-2016, 06:29 AM
Hi Caz

"But isn't it a bit extreme to have Abberline 'assuming' his curiosity was partly because of his personal connection with the woman, rather than admit he would simply have asked for clarification if that were the case? It's this odd curiosity thing that cries out for further explanation."

Granted, but I think the curiosity excuse was "blaggable". He might have said something like: "I've known that girl for three years, sir, and I've never known 'er to 'obnob with them posh, fancy types. It was so out of character for her, and I guess that got me a bit curious like, so I stuck about for a bit." I can't imagine that would have rung any immediate alarm bells for Abberline, and it wasn't as if William Marshall had any better excuse for skulking about on Berner Street when he saw Stride and companion walk past.

If Hutchinson had disclosed any other reason for his Dorset Street loitering, it would almost certainly have appeared in Abberline's report instead of the "idle curiosity" excuse.

All the best,
Ben

Michael W Richards
02-18-2016, 06:41 AM
Hutchinsons story is like a stalking record, and a personal acquaintence with Mary isnt enough of a reasonable explanation Ben. I would think the very fact he claims a position that until his appearance, looked like an accomplice situation or at least a watch-out, is suspicious..although it makes the pardon issuance from Warren on Saturday understandable.

Its not only the eery watching of the room...its the fact that that wideawake man was already very suspicious.

Garry Wroe
02-18-2016, 07:53 AM
Well we don't know that the 'alleged' encounter - their meeting by chance on his return from Romford, and her request for sixpence - took place as he claimed, do we? So why would we rely on his claim to have seen Astrakhan beforehand?
We shouldn't, Caz. Nor should we take anything he says regarding Kelly and Astrakhan at face value. The miraculously sobered-up Kelly is but one reason why I've long suspected that the Astrakhan story was pure fiction on Hutchnson's part. I'm not even convinced that he walked from Romford on the night in question. His police statement signatures also incline me to the view that he was operating under an assumed name. In fact, if Hutchinson was to tell me that my name is Garry Wroe I'd slip off to check my birth certificate before accepting him at his word.

c.d.
02-18-2016, 08:08 AM
"blaggable" ???????????????

c.d.

Abby Normal
02-18-2016, 10:34 AM
We shouldn't, Caz. Nor should we take anything he says regarding Kelly and Astrakhan at face value. The miraculously sobered-up Kelly is but one reason why I've long suspected that the Astrakhan story was pure fiction on Hutchnson's part. I'm not even convinced that he walked from Romford on the night in question. His police statement signatures also incline me to the view that he was operating under an assumed name. In fact, if Hutchinson was to tell me that my name is Garry Wroe I'd slip off to check my birth certificate before accepting him at his word.

agree and re the police sigs-that's a very interesting and astute observation.

I lean toward Hutch not even seeing Mary Kelly that night (except when he killed her, if he did, of course).

I think he was looking for her, maybe even walked to her door/window and realized she was with someone(blotchy?) and waited around for her guest to leave.

Garry Wroe
02-21-2016, 12:52 PM
Agreed, Abby. I also think it likely that Mrs Cox passed up the court as he was loitering to the rear of Kelly's room - hence his newspaper claim that he listened for activity there shortly before departing the scene at about three o'clock. Funny how he neglected to reveal such a detail whilst speaking to Badham and Abberline.

jason_c
02-21-2016, 03:11 PM
We shouldn't, Caz. Nor should we take anything he says regarding Kelly and Astrakhan at face value. The miraculously sobered-up Kelly is but one reason why I've long suspected that the Astrakhan story was pure fiction on Hutchnson's part. I'm not even convinced that he walked from Romford on the night in question. His police statement signatures also incline me to the view that he was operating under an assumed name. In fact, if Hutchinson was to tell me that my name is Garry Wroe I'd slip off to check my birth certificate before accepting him at his word.

These are the types of queries about Hutchison which intrigue me. Would the police have been diligent enough to have checked his Romford story? I have often wondered if any "regional" Ripper files are still lying unfound in some dusty basement. I would assume at the very least inquiries were made to the Romford police to check Hutchison's story. Then again I may be giving the police too much credit.

I do think it unlikely Hutchison spent his day in Whitechapel. I also think one aspect of Hutchison's story has a ring of truth; that is the length of time he waited on Astrakhan man emerging from Kelly's room. Fourty five minutes is more than the expected time a lady of the night would spend with a client. This doesn't help confirm or deny Hutchison's version of events, bit to me it does givbe his version slightly more credence. Hutchison was eager to get another look at Astrakhan for whatever nefarious or innocent puropse you wish to give him; but once the expected period of time elapsed he soon lost interest. Of corse this assumes we believe Hutchison in the first place.

Abby Normal
02-22-2016, 10:32 AM
Agreed, Abby. I also think it likely that Mrs Cox passed up the court as he was loitering to the rear of Kelly's room - hence his newspaper claim that he listened for activity there shortly before departing the scene at about three o'clock. Funny how he neglected to reveal such a detail whilst speaking to Badham and Abberline.

yeah funny that.

It not only puts him closer to the where the murdered woman was, but it shows that he knew exactly where she lived, something that is not clear from his police statement.

packers stem
02-22-2016, 11:40 AM
Where did the press statement originate from?
I think the star said they'd received a statement and the times mentioned a new statement... No mention of interview so was he actually interviewed by the press?
And as for the nonsense about not hearing a sound or seeing any light.... He must have found the window to 'see no light' and must have seen the gaping hole in the pane. Would he not have stuck his hand through had he been there for a few minutes

Garry Wroe
02-22-2016, 03:34 PM
Would the police have been diligent enough to have checked his Romford story?
It would have been all but impossible to have done so by the time Abberline penned his report on the Monday evening, Jason. Remembering too that the Echo expressed doubts regarding Hutchinson's story in its Tuesday edition, it seems unlikely that the alleged day in Romford could have been verified - unless, of course, Hutchinson had claimed to have been at a specific location with a specific person. To my mind it seems most plausible that the Astrakhan story was discredited before the Romford element could have been properly verified. If so, it makes no sense to suppose that investigators would have wasted time and manpower on checking the movements of a witness who had already been sidelined.

Garry Wroe
02-22-2016, 03:52 PM
Where did the press statement originate from?
I think the star said they'd received a statement and the times mentioned a new statement... No mention of interview so was he actually interviewed by the press?
Hutchinson was interviewed (I think) by the Press Association at the Victoria Home on the Tuesday evening, PS. Earlier in the day he'd viewed Kelly's remains and had then spent several hours in the company of detectives searching for Astrakhan. During this interview Hutchinson claimed that he'd first spotted Astrakhan on the corner of Commercial and Fashion Streets. He also maintained that he thought he'd seen Astrakhan on the Sunday and had reported details of the Astrakhan incident to a policeman. In addition, he stated that he'd wandered down Miller's Court and stood directly outside Kelly's room for a couple of minutes shortly before departing the scene at three o'clock. None of this, it might be noted, was contained in his official police statement nor revealed to Abberline under interrogation.

caz
03-04-2016, 09:30 AM
If it’s “by his own admission” it can’t be a fact, though, can it? I might claim to have seen a pig fly, but that's not the same as "admitting" to it. It’s just a claim, and claims can be both genuine and false. Since the police had no basis for accepting Hutchinson’s claim – not an admission, just a claim – to have been out and about on the streets of Spitalfields that morning, their first task was ascertain whether or not he was being truthful about that detail. Before they could even broach the question of “were you on the streets for murderous or non-murderous reasons” they had first to tackle “were you on the streets at all”.

Hi Ben,

That’s a very good point. So presumably they would have asked at the Victoria Home if anyone had seen Hutch around on the Thursday night/Friday morning in question? And this would be in the wake of Abberline’s early, unverified belief that the witness was telling the truth?


Another important point is that any suspicions directed Hutchinson’s way were unlikely to be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. “Where were you at the time Kelly was murdered, Hutchinson?”, “Walking about on my own sir”, “Ok, and what about your whereabouts for previous murders” “In my lodging house that sleeps 400 on an average night and doesn’t keep nightly registers of names from 5 weeks ago, sir”.

But if the police checked at the Victoria Home no later than, say, 48 hours after he gave his statement to them on the Monday, it would still be less than a week since the night in question, yes?

(Can you tell I’ve got an idea brewing?)


The police had been deluged with fame seekers and money grabbers pretending to be in possession of helpful information to the ripper investigation, and the "interrogation" was for the purpose of assessing whether or not Hutchinson was another one of those. There was vast precedent for that type of behaviour, whereas there was no precedent at all for the most wanted man in the history of London waltzing into the police station.

So they would have been used to the kind of questions that could trip up a witness and send him hurtling into the fame seeker/money grabber category, yes?


Moreover, if subsequent investigation cast doubt on his story (as I argue it did in Hutchinson's case), it was not as if there was the option of him being dismissed as an attention seeker. His physical connection to the crime scene - which you often cite as a plus in favour of his culpability - also ensured that any inconsistency in his story would inevitably have resulted in suspicion that he might have been involved. Hutchinson had the option of being lumped erroneously into the same category as Violenia, whereas Cross did not.

Yes, but you are assuming that if Hutch was lumped in with the attention seekers, it would have been erroneously, due to an inadequate assessment on the part of the police. We will never know how those ‘later investigations’ cast doubt on his story, but if we accept that they did, there must have been some concrete reason why they no longer believed he had any physical connection to the crime scene, unlike Cross. If it had been a case of doubting that Astrakhan was real, after Hutch failed to find him again, or hearing alarm bells when he blabbed to the press and appeared to be over-egging the pudding by adding new details, that would not have been enough to take him away from the crime scene, away from Kelly and right out of the equation. Would they not, at the very least, have tackled him again about their concerns and asked if he had anything to say about where he had really been at the time, if they now believed it was not in Commercial Street, watching Kelly with her unlikely customer? It might then have been in his best interests to claim (if he was the killer) or admit (if he was not) that he had made the whole thing up and had just spent the whole time “walking about” on his own.


Goldstein specifically drew attention to the fact that Fanny Mortimer had seen a man carrying a black bag, and that he was the man in question (we don't know if his "elimination" was made complete by a concrete alibi). Hutchinson, by contrast, didn't even make reference to Sarah Lewis, which was rather a wise move if he wanted to conceal the fact that he had been spooked into coming forward by her evidence, and he certainly did not have an "alibi" for Kelly's murder.

Now this is where my idea comes in…

You appear to be basing Hutch’s ‘certain’ lack of an alibi on your belief that he told the truth about having a physical connection to the crime scene. Yet you also believe the police found reason to doubt his claim to fame along with any such connection. His entire story was somehow discredited and he was allowed to slip into total obscurity.

Isn’t it therefore an intriguing possibility that those famous ‘later investigations’ had turned up the information that Hutch had not been “walking about” during the relevant hours of darkness, but was tucked up in dreamland at the Victoria Home the entire time, according to fellow inhabitants who knew him and had seen him there? Now that would not only have given him an alibi for Kelly’s murder, had he wanted or needed one; it would also justify a decision by the police to drop him as a credible witness without further ado. He would indeed have been just one more of those time-consuming fame seekers and money grabbers.

It would certainly help explain his whole account being discredited with no further action being taken, which could only have come from a conclusion that he had not been near Miller’s Court that night.

Have you a better suggestion for why the police would have been satisfied with this conclusion?

Love,

Caz
X

Sam Flynn
03-06-2016, 04:33 AM
In addition, he stated that he'd wandered down Miller's Court and stood directly outside Kelly's room for a couple of minutes shortly before departing the scene at three o'clock.
Is this the same report covered by the Star, Garry? It's not that straightforward, and seems to be a mish-mash of Hutchinson's police statement and other material, possibly gleaned by a press-agency reporter, as you suggest. Given journalistic/editorial involvement, it's quite possible that some of this could have been added or the sake of narrative - padding out some bald statements to make them more readable, with good intentions, but ultimately confusing matters in the process.

Whatever, the relevant passage is this: "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. I was out last night until three o'clock looking for him."

Shortly before this, in the same report, we have: "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away." (Note that this matches almost verbatim what Hutchinson told Sgt Badham. The only difference is that "came out" [police statement] has been substituted with "came down again" [The Star], but the rest is identical. I'm fairly convinced that this section of the Star report comes from the police statement.)

These "went to [look up] the court" and "went to the court" {before he gave up} references quite feasibly relate the same event, especially if one reference came from Sgt Badham and the other from a Press Agency reporter. So, did he "go up" the court or "go UP TO" the court?

Either way, in neither version does he state that he stood directly outside Kelly's room.

Abby Normal
03-07-2016, 10:42 AM
Is this the same report covered by the Star, Garry? It's not that straightforward, and seems to be a mish-mash of Hutchinson's police statement and other material, possibly gleaned by a press-agency reporter, as you suggest. Given journalistic/editorial involvement, it's quite possible that some of this could have been added or the sake of narrative - padding out some bald statements to make them more readable, with good intentions, but ultimately confusing matters in the process.

Whatever, the relevant passage is this: "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. I was out last night until three o'clock looking for him."

Shortly before this, in the same report, we have: "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three-quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away." (Note that this matches almost verbatim what Hutchinson told Sgt Badham. The only difference is that "came out" [police statement] has been substituted with "came down again" [The Star], but the rest is identical. I'm fairly convinced that this section of the Star report comes from the police statement.)

These "went to [look up] the court" and "went to the court" {before he gave up} references quite feasibly relate the same event, especially if one reference came from Sgt Badham and the other from a Press Agency reporter. So, did he "go up" the court or "go UP TO" the court?

Either way, in neither version does he state that he stood directly outside Kelly's room.

Hi Sam
To me, they are completely different. one is forty five minutes, the other a couple of minutes. One is to the court, the other is up the court. And close enough that he didn't hear a noise or see a sound-so hes obviously pretty darn close to her house.

also, the press statement he KNOWS exactly where Mary lives, police statement he does not.

ive said many times before this change is classic lying criminal behavior.

as in-did someone see me after I went into the court and stood outside her house?? I better add that bit just in case.

caz
03-08-2016, 05:51 AM
And yet, Abby, and yet...

...the police, having read all this, concluded he was never there at all?

Does that sound in any way reasonable, even if they were totally unprepared for lying witnesses being potentially involved, whether it be directly or indirectly, for example if they were trying to supply an alibi for the real killer? The police were assuredly aware of the potential for the killer(s) to have an accomplice watching their back, even if they could not conceive of the actual killer ever daring to show his face in the guise of a witness.

If Blotchy killed Kelly, for example, Hutch's statement was an absolute Godsend, putting a very different customer in the room long after Mrs. Cox's sighting. And Hutch didn't need to be there to help Blotchy out in this way.

The difference between Hutch and previous witnesses, who lived or worked or had other legitimate reasons for being near the respective crime scenes, but were ditched as mere publicity seekers, is that without Astrakhan he had no apparent business being near the Kelly crime scene at all, never mind practically outside her window.

So what went on in police minds? Did they not even try to establish if he was elsewhere, doing something else entirely, when they decided he was just another publicity seeker? Was he still potentially at the crime scene, but they lost interest in what he might have been doing there when they no longer believed Astrakhan was?

Love,

Caz
X

Michael W Richards
03-09-2016, 09:52 AM
And yet, Abby, and yet...

...the police, having read all this, concluded he was never there at all?

Does that sound in any way reasonable, even if they were totally unprepared for lying witnesses being potentially involved, whether it be directly or indirectly, for example if they were trying to supply an alibi for the real killer? The police were assuredly aware of the potential for the killer(s) to have an accomplice watching their back, even if they could not conceive of the actual killer ever daring to show his face in the guise of a witness.

If Blotchy killed Kelly, for example, Hutch's statement was an absolute Godsend, putting a very different customer in the room long after Mrs. Cox's sighting. And Hutch didn't need to be there to help Blotchy out in this way.

The difference between Hutch and previous witnesses, who lived or worked or had other legitimate reasons for being near the respective crime scenes, but were ditched as mere publicity seekers, is that without Astrakhan he had no apparent business being near the Kelly crime scene at all, never mind practically outside her window.

So what went on in police minds? Did they not even try to establish if he was elsewhere, doing something else entirely, when they decided he was just another publicity seeker? Was he still potentially at the crime scene, but they lost interest in what he might have been doing there when they no longer believed Astrakhan was?

Love,

Caz
X

The issue of whether a possible accomplice was suspected by the description given by Lewis is clear....made so by Warrens actions Saturday afternoon.

So the real issue here is why Hutchinson chose to assume that Wideawake role after that Pardon offer was made....since he isnt historically a suspect at all.

Suspicious and suspect can be mutually exclusive.

MysterySinger
03-09-2016, 01:06 PM
What was it about the Kelly case though that caused the pardon for an accomplice to be offered? Could it simply have been the evidence of Cox of seeing a man opposite the entrance to Miller's Court at a crucial time?

Sam Flynn
03-09-2016, 01:13 PM
What was it about the Kelly case though that caused the pardon for an accomplice to be offered? Could it simply have been the evidence of Cox of seeing a man opposite the entrance to Miller's Court at a crucial time?Possibly, but equally it might just have been a symptom of how desperate the authorities had become.

Michael W Richards
03-10-2016, 04:30 AM
What was it about the Kelly case though that caused the pardon for an accomplice to be offered? Could it simply have been the evidence of Cox of seeing a man opposite the entrance to Miller's Court at a crucial time?

I would venture that it was very influential in that decision, if not the sole reason. As Sam said they must have been desperate enough to entertain a lot of less than mainstream ideas....bloodhounds, mediums, etc....but the issue of whether they believed this killer could be caught by paying for assistance from the general public was strongly rejected until this point.

Abby Normal
03-11-2016, 08:10 AM
And yet, Abby, and yet...

...the police, having read all this, concluded he was never there at all?

Does that sound in any way reasonable, even if they were totally unprepared for lying witnesses being potentially involved, whether it be directly or indirectly, for example if they were trying to supply an alibi for the real killer? The police were assuredly aware of the potential for the killer(s) to have an accomplice watching their back, even if they could not conceive of the actual killer ever daring to show his face in the guise of a witness.

If Blotchy killed Kelly, for example, Hutch's statement was an absolute Godsend, putting a very different customer in the room long after Mrs. Cox's sighting. And Hutch didn't need to be there to help Blotchy out in this way.

The difference between Hutch and previous witnesses, who lived or worked or had other legitimate reasons for being near the respective crime scenes, but were ditched as mere publicity seekers, is that without Astrakhan he had no apparent business being near the Kelly crime scene at all, never mind practically outside her window.

So what went on in police minds? Did they not even try to establish if he was elsewhere, doing something else entirely, when they decided he was just another publicity seeker? Was he still potentially at the crime scene, but they lost interest in what he might have been doing there when they no longer believed Astrakhan was?

Love,

Caz
X


Hi Caz
sorry for the late reply-just saw this.

...the police, having read all this, concluded he was never there at all?

I'm not sure what they concluded-but it was probably along the lines of questioning his credibility and reliability as a witness. But if I had to bet I would say they probably concluded he was there, but never saw Mary or A man.

So what went on in police minds? Did they not even try to establish if he was elsewhere, doing something else entirely, when they decided he was just another publicity seeker? Was he still potentially at the crime scene, but they lost interest in what he might have been doing there when they no longer believed Astrakhan was?


But what are the police going to do? By his own admission, he has no alibi.
I'm sure they checked him out as best they could but without anything conclusive they cant do anything but drop him as a credible suspect-which is what they seemingly did. If they cant prove he lied they cant charge him with anything. There is no other evidence of guilt as being Marys killer-its dead end anyway.and of course he didn't testify at the inquest, so there goes that avenue for catching him in a lie.

If they came back and asked him about the discrepancy in the paper version, he could say anything he wanted-I thought I told you that or I forgot to tell you, I just remembered. whatever.

Bottom line. They initially believed him, came to not believe him, and perhaps some had suspicion, but not enough that it was written down anywhere or able to be followed up on.

Garry Wroe
03-11-2016, 03:30 PM
Is this the same report covered by the Star, Garry?
No, Sam. Here’s what I wrote in Person or Persons: ‘Remarkably, Hutchinson’s greatest bombshell appears to have been overlooked until now. According to a report carried by The Times on 13 November, he didn’t simply tire of his Dorset Street vigil and wander away as has been previously supposed. Rather, a little before 3:00am, he entered Miller’s Court and stood outside Kelly’s room – which, he insisted, was quiet and in darkness. ‘

This date is incorrect. The actual publication date was Wednesday the fourteenth. Here is the quote in question: ‘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.’

Given journalistic/editorial involvement, it's quite possible that some of this could have been added or the sake of narrative - padding out some bald statements to make them more readable, with good intentions, but ultimately confusing matters in the process.
I would encourage posters to access the piece for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Garry Wroe
03-14-2016, 06:03 AM
Further to my previous post here follows an extract from the Star of Wednesday, 14 November, in which Hutchinson is quoted at length:-

‘As they [Kelly and Astrakhan] came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street. They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, 'I have lost my handkerchief.' He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away ... 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.’ (My emphasis.)

Here a clear distinction is made between the locus on Dorset Street situated at the passage entrance (‘at the corner of Miller’s Court’) and the area beyond (‘up the court’). The final sentence is quite explicit. It reveals that Hutchinson had entered the court itself – placing himself sufficiently close to Kelly’s room that he was able to determine an absence of light and sound emanating from the room. This was a claim that was certainly not contained within Hutchinson’s official police statement, and nor in all likelihood was it revealed during the interrogation conducted by Abberline. Had it been otherwise Abberline would surely have noted such a crucial piece of information in his summary report. He didn’t, so it may be safely concluded that Hutchinson failed to inform Badham or Abberline of his claimed three o’clock presence at the Kelly crime scene.

Ben
03-14-2016, 07:27 AM
I agree entirely with you and Abby here, Garry. I argued along very similar lines when the subject came up on the "Vetting Hutchinson" thread.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=343803

Hi Caz,

"So presumably they would have asked at the Victoria Home if anyone had seen Hutch around on the Thursday night/Friday morning in question?"

Quite possibly, but considering the hoards of inmates coming and going at all hours of the night, it's doubtful that Hutchinson's presence (or otherwise) would have been registered. Even if a doorman did happen to make a note of his entry - "as soon as it opened in the morning" according to his press interview - it would have done little to resolve the issue of his whereabouts that night/morning, and it certainly wouldn't have allayed any suspicions the police may have had that Hutchinson was another time-waster.

"So they would have been used to the kind of questions that could trip up a witness and send him hurtling into the fame seeker/money grabber category, yes?"

If the fame seekers/money grabbers in question were ham-fisted in their efforts to present themselves as genuine witnesses, they would have been particularly vulnerable to such "trip-up" questions, yes. It is clear that Hutchinson himself created a favourable first impression, however.

"We will never know how those ‘later investigations’ cast doubt on his story, but if we accept that they did, there must have been some concrete reason why they no longer believed he had any physical connection to the crime scene, unlike Cross."

Unfortunately not.

Had there been a "concrete reason" in the form of, say, proof that he was elsewhere at the time, his account would not have suffered a mere "reduction" of importance (as per the Echo), but rather a complete eradication thereof. In cases where a proven liar is exposed as such beyond all reasonable doubt, it is usually spelt out in fairly robust terms by the press upon discovery, whereas the reports of Hutchinson's discrediting were more guarded with their terminology because no such "concrete" evidence had been found. Instead it appears that the police hierarchy arrived at a consensus that Hutchinson was probably full of it, just as they had done Packer and Violenia had been before him (neither of these men were proven to have lied). As Jon often reminds me - rather unnecessarily, as I don't dispute it - some factions within the Met continued to consider "Astrakhan man" as a valid lead. It cannot have been very influential as it did not result in a renewed hunt for men in Astrakhan coats, but the point is that no policeman, however low-rank, would have advocated a continuation of the Astrak-hunt if it had already been established beyond doubt that Hutchinson was elsewhere at the time of his alleged encounter.

If it had been a case of doubting that Astrakhan was real, after Hutch failed to find him again, or hearing alarm bells when he blabbed to the press and appeared to be over-egging the pudding by adding new details, that would not have been enough to take him away from the crime scene.

But not enough to put him there either.

Once the police had accepted that Violenia's alleged sighting in Hanbury Street was probably bogus, they didn't then task themselves with "removing" him from his purported location at the time of that "sighting"; that job was achieved the moment they ditched his account. In doing so, they logically concluded that he wasn't there at all; although, unlike Hutchinson, he at least had "business" there insofar as he lived on the street where the murder occurred.

Hutchinson's ultimate failure to demonstrate any such "business" would only have weakened his claim to have been there at all, and yet in your recent post to Abby, you suggest the reverse was the case - that the absence of demonstrable "business" would have made it more likely (in the minds of the police) that he was there in the capacity of a killer/accomplice, as opposed to being a publicity-seeker who wasn't. I don't quite get that.

It might then have been in his best interests to claim (if he was the killer) or admit (if he was not) that he had made the whole thing up and had just spent the whole time “walking about” on his own.

It might have been the best move if he was a mere time-waster, I agree, but if he was the killer, it was imperative to stick to his story. What if he had made a false confession to making the whole thing up (his presence at the crime scene included), only for some eagle-eyed journalist to then make the connection with Lewis's wideawake man? No such inference had been made at that stage, but could he rely on his luck to hold? It is Lewis's evidence - and Hutchinson coming forward hot on the heels of its publication - that establishes the latter's probable identity as the wideawake man (disregarding freak "coincidence" as an alternative explanation). Had this been registered at the time, Hutchinson would naturally have been treated with suspicion, but unfortunately it was not.

It has been argued in the past that the connection was secretly inferred, secretly investigated, and then secretly ruled out (all there in those "missing reports" as usual!), but this does not explain why, when the press has access to both the Hutchinson and Lewis statements, not a single journalist made reference to it at any point. It is often protested that the press didn't need to mention it because they already knew it had been investigated and dismissed, but that's obviously nonsense because both accounts were in the public domain long before any investigation (into a potential Hutch=wideawake connection) could have produced a satisfactory result either way, so why didn't they draw attention to it then?

The only possible answer is that it simply passed unnoticed, as so often occurs in a high profile, multi-lead investigation.

All the best,
Ben

Sam Flynn
03-14-2016, 10:17 AM
I would encourage posters to access the piece for themselves and draw their own conclusions
I'd go further, Garry, and suggest that posters should read as many primary sources as possible before they draw their own conclusions. We all know what a minefield the press reports can be.

Sam Flynn
03-14-2016, 10:20 AM
Further to my previous post here follows an extract from the Star of Wednesday, 14 November, in which Hutchinson is quoted at length:-

‘As they [Kelly and Astrakhan] came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street. They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, 'I have lost my handkerchief.' He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away ... 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.’ (My emphasis.)
The bit before the ellipsis [...] seems to be heavily based on Hutch's police statement, as I've already suggested. If this report were cobbled together from various reports (police and/or press agency), we can hardly expect much in the way of semantic consistency, nor have much confidence in the interpretation of them. Other reports merely say "up TO the court" - which is correct? Beats me, but I would reiterate that the reports do not say that Hutchinson "stood directly outside Kelly's room", which you claimed earlier.In addition, he stated that he'd wandered down Miller's Court and stood directly outside Kelly's room.

Michael W Richards
03-14-2016, 12:04 PM
Further to my previous post here follows an extract from the Star of Wednesday, 14 November, in which Hutchinson is quoted at length:-

‘As they [Kelly and Astrakhan] came by me his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on, and this was drawn down somewhat over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face, and he turned and looked at me very sternly, and they walked across the road to Dorset-street. I followed them across, and stood at the corner of Dorset-street. They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, 'I have lost my handkerchief.' He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for threequarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away ... 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.’ (My emphasis.)

Here a clear distinction is made between the locus on Dorset Street situated at the passage entrance (‘at the corner of Miller’s Court’) and the area beyond (‘up the court’). The final sentence is quite explicit. It reveals that Hutchinson had entered the court itself – placing himself sufficiently close to Kelly’s room that he was able to determine an absence of light and sound emanating from the room. This was a claim that was certainly not contained within Hutchinson’s official police statement, and nor in all likelihood was it revealed during the interrogation conducted by Abberline. Had it been otherwise Abberline would surely have noted such a crucial piece of information in his summary report. He didn’t, so it may be safely concluded that Hutchinson failed to inform Badham or Abberline of his claimed three o’clock presence at the Kelly crime scene.

Youve been looking at these inconsistencies and pondering whethere the press accurately reflected the quotes by Hutchinson....how about this, since we have no proof at all that Hutchinson was there that night at all, why not ponder if he gave differing accounts by accident? We have no proof George Hutchinson was there, unless you assume he was the man Sarah saw, we have no proof he knew Mary at all, nor do we have any proof that he even knew where Mary Jane Kelly lived.

We have only his word for all of that...something I personally dont put a whole lot of stock in.

My guess....he was paid by someone else to assume Wideawakes role.

Abby Normal
03-14-2016, 04:18 PM
The bit before the ellipsis [...] seems to be heavily based on Hutch's police statement, as I've already suggested. If this report were cobbled together from various reports (police and/or press agency), we can hardly expect much in the way of semantic consistency, nor have much confidence in the interpretation of them. Other reports merely say "up TO the court" - which is correct? Beats me, but I would reiterate that the reports do not say that Hutchinson "stood directly outside Kelly's room", which you claimed earlier.

Where else would he be if he could tell there was no noise or sound?

Rosella
03-14-2016, 05:07 PM
We don't have 'proof' that Schwartz saw or heard what he said he did just before Stride's death either. Neither man appeared at the Inquests. Yet Schwartz's account seems to be taken as gospel by many on this forum while Hutchinson is dismissed as a fantasist and liar.

Damaso Marte
03-14-2016, 08:22 PM
We don't have 'proof' that Schwartz saw or heard what he said he did just before Stride's death either. Neither man appeared at the Inquests. Yet Schwartz's account seems to be taken as gospel by many on this forum while Hutchinson is dismissed as a fantasist and liar.

There are plenty on the board who dismiss Schwartz - I'm one of them. If Schwartz has more adherents than Hutchinson, perhaps it is because Schwartz's story is significantly more plausible than Hutchinson's.

Garry Wroe
03-16-2016, 04:23 AM
The bit before the ellipsis [...] seems to be heavily based on Hutch's police statement, as I've already suggested.
Agreed, Sam.

If this report were cobbled together from various reports (police and/or press agency), we can hardly expect much in the way of semantic consistency, nor have much confidence in the interpretation of them.
But there is semantic consistency, Sam. In its edition of Wednesday, 14 November, The Times attributed the following statement to Hutchinson: ‘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.’ On the same date The Star quoted Hutchinson thus: ‘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.’

Precisely the same wording.

Which would strongly suggest that both publications used a common source for their respective Hutchinson reports of 14 November – the interview conducted by the agency journalist at the Victoria Home on the evening of Tuesday, 13 November.

Beats me, but I would reiterate that the reports do not say that Hutchinson "stood directly outside Kelly's room", which you claimed earlier.
The inference is manifestly obvious, Sam. ‘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.’ Hutchinson by his own admission had been watching the court for the better part of three-quarters of an hour. The man seen by Sarah Lewis was staring intently up the court as though ‘watching or waiting for someone.’ Hutchinson then claimed that he ‘went up the court’. Why else would he have vacated his position on Dorset Street if not to get closer to the room in which he had professed such an interest? And how else would he have known that neither sound nor light was emanating from the room unless he’d spent at least some time outside one or both of Kelly’s windows?

Garry Wroe
03-16-2016, 04:25 AM
Youve been looking at these inconsistencies and pondering whethere the press accurately reflected the quotes by Hutchinson....how about this, since we have no proof at all that Hutchinson was there that night at all, why not ponder if he gave differing accounts by accident?
I first developed my ‘Hutchinson hypothesis’ in 1986, Mike, since which time I’ve considered every possibility. In terms of the ‘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’ statement, I think it likely that Mary Ann Cox passed Hutchinson as he lurked in the shadows close to Kelly’s windows at three o’clock or thereabouts. Having had the time to reflect on the matter after having made his police statement Hutchinson then began to fear being placed at the actual crime scene rather than ‘at the corner of the court’, so made a throwaway remark to the agency journalist in order to provide an element of insurance in the event of Mrs Cox or any other witness coming forward with information that might have compromised the story he related to Badham and Abberline.

We have no proof George Hutchinson was there, unless you assume he was the man Sarah saw …
Which I do, Mike. Sarah Lewis’s story was not in the public domain at the time Hutchinson came forward. She had related it first under police questioning and then as a witness at the Kelly inquest. Since Abberline gave evidence at the inquest it is safe to assume that Hutchinson could not have been in attendance – unless, of course, one supposes that Abberline failed to recognise Hutchinson at Commercial Street Police Station just a few hours later. Thus it may be inferred that Hutchinson knew nothing of the Lewis narrative at the time he made his police statement. With this in mind, compare the stories of Sarah and Hutchinson. Whilst Hutchinson stated that he watched the court in anticipation of the emergence of Astrakhan and/or Kelly, Sarah claimed to have sighted a man directly opposite the court staring into the entry as though ‘looking or waiting for someone.’ To my mind, therefore, Sarah’s observations serve to confirm that Hutchinson was indeed on Dorset Street as he claimed to have been in his police statement.

We have only his word for all of that...something I personally dont put a whole lot of stock in.
Whereas I don’t believe a word of the Astrakhan story, Mike, the evidence of Sarah Lewis is strongly suggestive that Hutchinson was on Dorset Street as claimed.

Garry Wroe
03-16-2016, 04:26 AM
We don't have 'proof' that Schwartz saw or heard what he said he did just before Stride's death either. Neither man appeared at the Inquests. Yet Schwartz's account seems to be taken as gospel by many on this forum while Hutchinson is dismissed as a fantasist and liar.
The reality, though, Rosella, is that Hutchinson undoubtedly gave conflicting accounts to the press and police. Neither should we forget that he was dismissed by investigators as a credible witness – and very quickly too if the report in The Echo of Tuesday, 13 November, may be taken as reliable.

packers stem
03-16-2016, 04:40 AM
We don't have 'proof' that Schwartz saw or heard what he said he did just before Stride's death either. Neither man appeared at the Inquests. Yet Schwartz's account seems to be taken as gospel by many on this forum while Hutchinson is dismissed as a fantasist and liar.

There's a world of difference
Schwartz was spoken to before the inquest, the inexplicable exclusion from the inquest was down to the authorities for reasons only known to themselves
Hutchinson,if he existed at all,appeared within hours,minutes even, of the inquest closure

Abby Normal
03-16-2016, 05:21 AM
I first developed my ‘Hutchinson hypothesis’ in 1986, Mike, since which time I’ve considered every possibility. In terms of the ‘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’ statement, I think it likely that Mary Ann Cox passed Hutchinson as he lurked in the shadows close to Kelly’s windows at three o’clock or thereabouts. Having had the time to reflect on the matter after having made his police statement Hutchinson then began to fear being placed at the actual crime scene rather than ‘at the corner of the court’, so made a throwaway remark to the agency journalist in order to provide an element of insurance in the event of Mrs Cox or any other witness coming forward with information that might have compromised the story he related to Badham and Abberline.


Which I do, Mike. Sarah Lewis’s story was not in the public domain at the time Hutchinson came forward. She had related it first under police questioning and then as a witness at the Kelly inquest. Since Abberline gave evidence at the inquest it is safe to assume that Hutchinson could not have been in attendance – unless, of course, one supposes that Abberline failed to recognise Hutchinson at Commercial Street Police Station just a few hours later. Thus it may be inferred that Hutchinson knew nothing of the Lewis narrative at the time he made his police statement. With this in mind, compare the stories of Sarah and Hutchinson. Whilst Hutchinson stated that he watched the court in anticipation of the emergence of Astrakhan and/or Kelly, Sarah claimed to have sighted a man directly opposite the court staring into the entry as though ‘looking or waiting for someone.’ To my mind, therefore, Sarah’s observations serve to confirm that Hutchinson was indeed on Dorset Street as he claimed to have been in his police statement.


Whereas I don’t believe a word of the Astrakhan story, Mike, the evidence of Sarah Lewis is strongly suggestive that Hutchinson was on Dorset Street as claimed.

Hi Gary

Which I do, Mike. Sarah Lewis’s story was not in the public domain at the time Hutchinson came forward. She had related it first under police questioning and then as a witness at the Kelly inquest. Since Abberline gave evidence at the inquest it is safe to assume that Hutchinson could not have been in attendance – unless, of course, one supposes that Abberline failed to recognise Hutchinson at Commercial Street Police Station just a few hours later. Thus it may be inferred that Hutchinson knew nothing of the Lewis narrative at the time he made his police statement. With this in mind, compare the stories of Sarah and Hutchinson. Whilst Hutchinson stated that he watched the court in anticipation of the emergence of Astrakhan and/or Kelly, Sarah claimed to have sighted a man directly opposite the court staring into the entry as though ‘looking or waiting for someone.’ To my mind, therefore, Sarah’s observations serve to confirm that Hutchinson was indeed on Dorset Street as he claimed to have been in his police statement.



Hi Gary
Many have believed it was sarahs inquest account of the waiting man (hutch) that led hutch to come forward, and that he obviously got wind of her account somehow, either by word of mouth or being at the inquest. You seem to be suggesting this isn't the case?

if it wasn't sarahs inquest story that brought him forward, what was, or why did he feel the need to?

packers stem
03-16-2016, 05:50 AM
Hi Gary



Hi Gary
Many have believed it was sarahs inquest account of the waiting man (hutch) that led hutch to come forward, and that he obviously got wind of her account somehow, either by word of mouth or being at the inquest. You seem to be suggesting this isn't the case?

if it wasn't sarahs inquest story that brought him forward, what was, or why did he feel the need to?

Quite.....

Abby Normal
03-16-2016, 10:02 AM
Quite.....

Hi PS
not sure your what your getting at with that response. But Im asking Garry's thoughts because I totally respect him as an author, researcher and poster and he has brought up many good ideas about Hutch as a valid suspect (something I agree with) and I want to hear more.

For my part, I think its possible, Hutch heard what sarah said at the inquest, or got wind of it, or even maybe knew that she was there that was the catalyst for him to come forward of his own accord.

But even if he didn't, I think it also possible that the mere sight of her that night and the possibility in his mind that she saw him there and that she might know him might have done it.

Garry mentioned the interesting possibility that it was Cox who might have seen him IN the court that night that prompted his changing his story to the press. Im wondering if garry also might think she was the one who prompted him to come forward to the police in the first place.

Michael W Richards
03-16-2016, 10:26 AM
I first developed my ‘Hutchinson hypothesis’ in 1986, Mike, since which time I’ve considered every possibility. In terms of the ‘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’ statement, I think it likely that Mary Ann Cox passed Hutchinson as he lurked in the shadows close to Kelly’s windows at three o’clock or thereabouts. Having had the time to reflect on the matter after having made his police statement Hutchinson then began to fear being placed at the actual crime scene rather than ‘at the corner of the court’, so made a throwaway remark to the agency journalist in order to provide an element of insurance in the event of Mrs Cox or any other witness coming forward with information that might have compromised the story he related to Badham and Abberline.


Which I do, Mike. Sarah Lewis’s story was not in the public domain at the time Hutchinson came forward. She had related it first under police questioning and then as a witness at the Kelly inquest. Since Abberline gave evidence at the inquest it is safe to assume that Hutchinson could not have been in attendance – unless, of course, one supposes that Abberline failed to recognise Hutchinson at Commercial Street Police Station just a few hours later. Thus it may be inferred that Hutchinson knew nothing of the Lewis narrative at the time he made his police statement. With this in mind, compare the stories of Sarah and Hutchinson. Whilst Hutchinson stated that he watched the court in anticipation of the emergence of Astrakhan and/or Kelly, Sarah claimed to have sighted a man directly opposite the court staring into the entry as though ‘looking or waiting for someone.’ To my mind, therefore, Sarah’s observations serve to confirm that Hutchinson was indeed on Dorset Street as he claimed to have been in his police statement.


Whereas I don’t believe a word of the Astrakhan story, Mike, the evidence of Sarah Lewis is strongly suggestive that Hutchinson was on Dorset Street as claimed.

Hi Garry,

Thats the most polite " I disagree" that Ive recieved here, thanks Garry.:pleased:

Now we have no evidence that precludes Sarah having discussed her story with others over the weekend, and we know that she first appears in this story erroneously, maybe purposefully so, under the name Mrs Kennedy in the Star on the 10th. Plus we know that Hutchinson says he was at the Victorian Mens Home, where I believe Daniel Barnett was also staying. People talk....maybe Daniel heard about the statement from Joe, as he was likely given inside investigative information to assuage any concerns he might have had about the investigation into Marys death...considering the lack of success all the previous investigations were having.

I think the 4 day delay suggests contemplation by Hutchinson....he had time to decide what to do, and say.

Cheers Garry

richardnunweek
03-16-2016, 11:01 AM
Hi.
We have Hutchinson being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Daniel Barnett being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Joseph Fleming being a resident of the Victoria home.
Hutchinson claims to have seen Kelly , and return to her room with a man.
Daniel Barnett,was drinking with Kelly a few hours before she was killed.
Joseph Fleming was confirmed insane 3 years after the murder.
Three men who had connections with the victim, residing in the same lodgings..
Is this pure coincidence, or some sinister triangle.?
Regards Richard.

packers stem
03-16-2016, 11:15 AM
Hi PS
not sure your what your getting at with that response. But Im asking Garry's thoughts because I totally respect him as an author, researcher and poster and he has brought up many good ideas about Hutch as a valid suspect (something I agree with) and I want to hear more.

For my part, I think its possible, Hutch heard what sarah said at the inquest, or got wind of it, or even maybe knew that she was there that was the catalyst for him to come forward of his own accord.

But even if he didn't, I think it also possible that the mere sight of her that night and the possibility in his mind that she saw him there and that she might know him might have done it.

Garry mentioned the interesting possibility that it was Cox who might have seen him IN the court that night that prompted his changing his story to the press. Im wondering if garry also might think she was the one who prompted him to come forward to the police in the first place.

Hi Abby and Garry
What do you make of Mrs Kennedy's sighting?

Abby Normal
03-16-2016, 12:36 PM
Hi Abby and Garry
What do you make of Mrs Kennedy's sighting?

not much. probably just a garbled account of lewis.

Fisherman
03-16-2016, 01:02 PM
Hi.
We have Hutchinson being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Daniel Barnett being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Joseph Fleming being a resident of the Victoria home.
Hutchinson claims to have seen Kelly , and return to her room with a man.
Daniel Barnett,was drinking with Kelly a few hours before she was killed.
Joseph Fleming was confirmed insane 3 years after the murder.
Three men who had connections with the victim, residing in the same lodgings..
Is this pure coincidence, or some sinister triangle.?
Regards Richard.

Some will only count to two here.... ;)

Abby Normal
03-16-2016, 01:26 PM
Some will only count to two here.... ;)

good one

Abby Normal
03-16-2016, 01:27 PM
Hi.
We have Hutchinson being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Daniel Barnett being a resident of the Victoria home.
We have Joseph Fleming being a resident of the Victoria home.
Hutchinson claims to have seen Kelly , and return to her room with a man.
Daniel Barnett,was drinking with Kelly a few hours before she was killed.
Joseph Fleming was confirmed insane 3 years after the murder.
Three men who had connections with the victim, residing in the same lodgings..
Is this pure coincidence, or some sinister triangle.?
Regards Richard.

I think it bolsters Hutchs account that he actually knew her and knew her current (single) situation.

packers stem
03-16-2016, 04:35 PM
not much. probably just a garbled account of lewis.

The star on the 10th....
A woman named Kennedy was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true, establishes the time at which the
MURDERER COMMENCED HIS OPERATIONS
upon his victim. She states that about three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset-street on her way to her parent's house, which is situate immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a man - a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache - talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a female poorly clad, and without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming." Whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go. Mrs. Kennedy went on her way and nothing unusual occurred until about half an hour later. She states that she did not retire to rest immediately she reached her parents' abode, but sat up, and between half-past three and a quarter to four she
HEARD A CRY OF "MURDER."
in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated. As the cry was not repeated she took no further notice of the circumstance until this morning, when she found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small houses in this court. When questioned by the police as to what she had heard throughout the night, she made a statement to the above effect.
Nope, nothing garbled there. Seems like an honest account
Did Kennedy 'become' Lewis? If so then the Lewis account has altered completely and becomes worthless.
Also Lewis adopted the second part of the Kennedy story as the Kennedy story hit the press first
If they were different people why was she not called to the inquest?

Wickerman
03-16-2016, 06:07 PM
If they were different people why was she not called to the inquest?

Which is a dead argument if you can't find the reason why Schwartz was not called either.

An inquest is not a trial.

packers stem
03-16-2016, 06:15 PM
Which is a dead argument if you can't find the reason why Schwartz was not called either.

An inquest is not a trial.

You're right Wickerman
Anyone who actually saw anything important didn't get anywhere near the inquest apart from the impeccable Maxwell and they tried to put her off.
Schwartz,Kennedy,Packer,Maurice Lewis.Yet people who really saw nothing at all were called...Long,Cadosch,Richardson. What does that suggest to you?

Scott Nelson
03-16-2016, 08:51 PM
residence in the Victoria Home, free morning newspapers, a chance to read about what's happening...to create a story and go to the police -- to be somebody - what more could you want?

Garry Wroe
03-18-2016, 01:28 PM
Many have believed it was sarahs inquest account of the waiting man (hutch) that led hutch to come forward, and that he obviously got wind of her account somehow, either by word of mouth or being at the inquest. You seem to be suggesting this isn't the case?
Yes and no, Abby.

if it wasn't sarahs inquest story that brought him forward, what was, or why did he feel the need to?
Try looking at the issue from a slightly different perspective, Abby. Hutchinson lived but a stone’s throw from Dorset Street and probably frequented the district’s drinking dens. Sarah, too, was a local and was sufficiently well acquainted with Miller’s Court that she was able to secure a bed there in the small hours of the morning. Thus I think it more than plausible that Hutchinson knew Sarah by sight, recognized her on the night of the Kelly murder, saw her enter Shoreditch Town Hall on the day of the inquest, realized that she was an official witness and simply assumed the worst.

We, of course, are aware that the authorities’ principal interest in Sarah lay in her evidence relating to the cry of ‘Murder!’, which in all likelihood indicated the approximate time of death. Hutchinson, however, was not privy to such information. Thus, in his ignorance, he perhaps assumed that Sarah’s evidence related to her sighting of the wideawake man she saw monitoring the court shortly before the murder – in other words, Hutchinson himself. On this basis he may have supposed that Wideawake had assumed significance in the murder enquiry and began to fear that Sarah might have recognized him too. Even if she didn’t know his name she would have been aware that he lived and socialized locally. Worse still, she would almost certainly have been able to identify him in the event that he was picked up amid a police trawl of local pubs and lodging houses.

Albeit speculative, this scenario provides what to my mind is the most persuasive explanation as to why Hutchinson came forward when he did, and why he did so with the palpably absurd story involving Astrakhan and Kelly. It does not require that Hutchinson knew anything of Sarah’s police statement or inquest testimony. It merely requires that he knew she had become an official witness.

Everything about Hutchinson’s police statement appears to have been geared up to provide justification for his presence on Dorset Street shortly before the murder – not least the inclusion of an archetypal pantomime villain. To my mind this provides a clear indication that it was a fear of the potential consequences of the Lewis sighting that motivated him to come forward. No mention to investigators of his having wandered into Miller’s Court shortly before three o’clock. That particular revelation only emerged later after Hutchinson had had the time to consider his position a little more thoughtfully. Perhaps this is something that ought to be borne in mind by those who believe that George was a misunderstood individual who was merely doing his civic duty.

Garry Wroe
03-18-2016, 02:50 PM
Thats the most polite " I disagree" that Ive recieved here, thanks Garry.
You and I both remember, Mike, when it was possible on this site to disagree without being disagreeable. How times have changed.

Now we have no evidence that precludes Sarah having discussed her story with others over the weekend, and we know that she first appears in this story erroneously, maybe purposefully so, under the name Mrs Kennedy in the Star on the 10th.
The problem being, though, Mike, that the Kennedy story makes no mention of Wideawake. Consequently, Hutchinson had nothing to worry about from the Kennedy perspective.

I think the 4 day delay suggests contemplation by Hutchinson....he had time to decide what to do, and say.
Sorry to disagree again, Mike, but I see Hutchinson’s Astrakhan story as hastily concocted – a knee-jerk reaction cobbled together in response to his recognition that Sarah Lewis had become an official witness. Hence the absurd claims regarding Kelly and Astrakhan.

Garry Wroe
03-18-2016, 02:51 PM
What do you make of Mrs Kennedy's sighting?
Read the Lewis account, PS, and you’ll see that Sarah was on Bethnal Green Road with her sister on the Wednesday. I’ve long suspected that Mrs Kennedy and this sister were one and the same, and that she simply hijacked Sarah’s story in order to make some easy cash from a news-hungry journalist.

Garry Wroe
03-18-2016, 02:54 PM
Garry mentioned the interesting possibility that it was Cox who might have seen him IN the court that night that prompted his changing his story to the press. Im wondering if garry also might think she was the one who prompted him to come forward to the police in the first place.
No, Abby. I remain convinced that Sarah Lewis was the factor which prompted Hutchinson to come forward. I do, however, think it likely that Hutchinson saw Mrs Cox as he loitered in the shadows beside Kelly’s windows. Only later, I suspect, after he had submitted his police statement, did he begin to worry that he had been seen and thus contemplate the possibility that this witness might have been able to place him in the court at a time when he had claimed in his police statement to have been elsewhere.

caz
04-01-2016, 04:19 AM
Hi Caz
sorry for the late reply-just saw this.

No problem Abby, my replies are usually even later. :)

I'm not sure what they concluded-but it was probably along the lines of questioning his credibility and reliability as a witness. But if I had to bet I would say they probably concluded he was there, but never saw Mary or A man.

Yet they never established what he was really doing there, if they concluded he had not been waiting there for some unusually flashy client of Kelly's to emerge, and had never even seen either of them that night? Never connected his now unexplained and lonesome loitering presence with Sarah Lewis's unexplained and lonesome loitering man? Never had any suspicions that he might have been up to good since he had no apparent business being there at all?

But what are the police going to do? By his own admission, he has no alibi.

But he chose to admit he was there, right outside the crime scene, so he presumably wasn't expecting to need an alibi, nor to supply one unless the police began to suspect his motives. There is always a chance that he was spinning a yarn for fame and a bit of much needed cash (hence his late arrival at the police station, followed by his indecent haste to give his story to the papers) in which case he may very well have had an alibi if things became uncomfortable and he had no alternative explanation for his claimed presence in Miller's Court.

Bottom line. They initially believed him, came to not believe him, and perhaps some had suspicion, but not enough that it was written down anywhere or able to be followed up on.

Only if he really was where he said he was though, Abby, and not in a lodging house bed, with witnesses to confirm it. For me, that would be the only sure way of being dropped as a discredited witness without further ado. We don't want to invoke the spectre of missing paperwork (for Ben's sake ;)), but surely there would have been something in writing about the need to keep close tabs on him for the foreseeable future, and what they did about it, if they had failed to establish what he may have been up to near the crime scene, after similarly failing to establish he was somewhere else?

Love,

Caz
X

caz
04-01-2016, 05:10 AM
Hutchinson's ultimate failure to demonstrate any such "business" would only have weakened his claim to have been there at all, and yet in your recent post to Abby, you suggest the reverse was the case - that the absence of demonstrable "business" would have made it more likely (in the minds of the police) that he was there in the capacity of a killer/accomplice, as opposed to being a publicity-seeker who wasn't. I don't quite get that.

Hi Ben,

Well Abby would 'get' it:


I'm not sure what they concluded-but it was probably along the lines of questioning his credibility and reliability as a witness. But if I had to bet I would say they probably concluded he was there, but never saw Mary or A man.

If Hutch was guilty, the best outcome possible for him was for the police to conclude he was never there and made the whole thing up.

Second best was for the police to believe he was there, but for innocent motives.

Worst was for the police to conclude he was there (especially if they had gone on to make the connection with Sarah Lewis's lurker, which is what you argue prompted him forward in the first place, while hoping they would not link his sudden appearance with her inquest testimony) but reject his sighting of Kelly and client along with his excuse for being right outside her room that night.

...if he was the killer, it was imperative to stick to his story. What if he had made a false confession to making the whole thing up (his presence at the crime scene included), only for some eagle-eyed journalist to then make the connection with Lewis's wideawake man? No such inference had been made at that stage, but could he rely on his luck to hold? It is Lewis's evidence - and Hutchinson coming forward hot on the heels of its publication - that establishes the latter's probable identity as the wideawake man (disregarding freak "coincidence" as an alternative explanation). Had this been registered at the time, Hutchinson would naturally have been treated with suspicion, but unfortunately it was not.

And here's the rub, because if he volunteered his story to the police and every eagle-eyed journalist on the planet, as a direct result of what Sarah Lewis saw, he was inviting everyone to register the connection, without saying a word about it himself, and was surely anticipating that someone would register it, upon which he would 'naturally have been treated with suspicion' - the same suspicion he supposedly came forward to avoid. It's a bit of a dog's breakfast, isn't it? And that's without knowing if he had the time or the opportunity to absorb Lewis's entire testimony, appreciate his dilemma, fashion an account of his own to fit in with hers, then turn up at the nick when he did to spew it all out and receive Abberline's initial seal of approval.

Love,

Caz
X

packers stem
04-01-2016, 05:12 AM
Read the Lewis account, PS, and you’ll see that Sarah was on Bethnal Green Road with her sister on the Wednesday. I’ve long suspected that Mrs Kennedy and this sister were one and the same, and that she simply hijacked Sarah’s story in order to make some easy cash from a news-hungry journalist.

Hi Gary
Sorry just spotted this as the post has been brought back up the thread.
It may well have been that Sarah Lewis and Mrs kennedy were sisters but it could be that Kennedy and Lewis were the same person and that her story altered markedly over a couple of days.
Kennedy would have been interviewed on the ninth by the star journalist. Why, other than the ending being the same as Lewis, is it completely different in every aspect?
If Sarah had told her what she she had seen and she was trying to hijack the story like you say, why would she change the details of the first part completely?
Reading the Kennedy version it just does not read made up whereas there are issues with the Lewis statement including the crossing out.

caz
04-01-2016, 06:33 AM
Sarah Lewis’s story was not in the public domain at the time Hutchinson came forward. She had related it first under police questioning and then as a witness at the Kelly inquest. Since Abberline gave evidence at the inquest it is safe to assume that Hutchinson could not have been in attendance – unless, of course, one supposes that Abberline failed to recognise Hutchinson at Commercial Street Police Station just a few hours later. Thus it may be inferred that Hutchinson knew nothing of the Lewis narrative at the time he made his police statement.

Whoa there, Garry. So you and Ben have very different views on what prompted Hutchinson to come forward. I have always found it tricky to believe he could have known the full extent of Lewis's account, recognised himself and tailored a story to explain why he was watching and waiting there, while hoping nobody would think he was the same man Lewis saw.

So what do you think his motives were for coming forward if he was the killer and had no knowledge of any witnesses who could realistically have caused him grief if he had stayed away and kept a low profile?

Love,

Caz
X

caz
04-01-2016, 06:55 AM
For my part, I think its possible, Hutch heard what sarah said at the inquest, or got wind of it, or even maybe knew that she was there that was the catalyst for him to come forward of his own accord.

But even if he didn't, I think it also possible that the mere sight of her that night and the possibility in his mind that she saw him there and that she might know him might have done it.

Garry mentioned the interesting possibility that it was Cox who might have seen him IN the court that night that prompted his changing his story to the press. Im wondering if garry also might think she was the one who prompted him to come forward to the police in the first place.

What I don't quite get is why the killer would go ahead with his plans, and stay (more or less cornered) in that little room acting them out for a comparatively long time, if he was aware of any witness who saw him lurking there beforehand, who might fetch a policeman to investigate if they were suspicious, or could later describe him and his behaviour and possibly identify him.

On the other hand, if he had an overwhelming compulsion to do the deed regardless, or had no fear at the time of any witnesses such as Lewis or Cox seeing him, or didn't know he had been caught watching, he must have had considerable misgivings afterwards to put himself under the spotlight and try to put a plaster over it all, with the sensational statements he made to the police and the press. Clearly as the killer, he knew that neither Lewis nor Cox, nor any other witness around at that time, would have seen anyone remotely like the suspect he claimed Kelly had picked up and taken back to the court just before he began his own vigil there.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
04-01-2016, 07:30 AM
One other thing...

If no connection was made by the police between Lewis's lurking man and Hutchinson (either because there would be surviving paperwork, or because they apparently concluded he was never there), would there not have been any paperwork referring to police attempts to track down and identify the man Lewis did see, given that he was watching the court as if waiting for someone to emerge at a time when Kelly could already have been murdered; could have been in the process of being mutilated; or could shortly have been attacked by a client or an intruder?

It seems that for whatever reason the police did not consider Hutch for the role of Lewis's lurker; did not treat Lewis's lurker as a potential suspect; or if they did, their enquiries led nowhere and the paperwork is - er - missing.

Oh and the fact that neither Lewis nor Cox appear to have realised that Hutch must have been the man they saw, from the various newspaper accounts (or if they did they kept their traps well shut for a change), makes it doubtful that Hutch thought they knew him or had seen him about locally, and could have got him identified had he failed to come forward of his own accord.

Love,

Caz
X

Fleetwood Mac
04-01-2016, 11:29 AM
Something hit me recently, and I'm probably not the first to come with the idea.

I've been reading The Darkest Streets and The Worst Street in London, just to get some context about pauperism in late Victorian London.

A few things jumped in front of my eyes (unfortunately, I can't remember to which of the two books they relate)
- Garotting: There were several cases where prostitutes would lure men only for them to be welcomed by muggers who would take their money, jewelry and clothes.
- Spitalfields: There was even more resentment in Spitalfields against the Jewish community, mostly because many buildings were bought in the Southern part to be torned down, and housing for Jewish families built instead.
- Dorset Street: people were very suspicious of rich/higher class people on Dorset Street.

Now, let's imagine that Hutchinson did say the truth. Would it be far fetched to think that the reason he described the man so well, and waited in front of Miller's Court was because he had the intention of robbing him?

Which also makes him reluctant to talk to police until he hears that someone spotted him and gave description at the inquest.

Not saying he was a recurring criminal.

I think the grievance against Jewish immigrants, and not just Jewish immigrants, was that they were prepared to live in over-crowded conditions and so push rents up. Most of these things are economic.

I suppose the flaw in your argument is that Hutchinson didn't have a prostitute in tow and he could have just robbed him there and then in the street.

I personally don't think Hutchinson was even there and his involvement was driven by reward.

That said, unlike most I don't think it's a stretch to think he could have remembered such details. Some people have an eye for detail more than others.

Wickerman
04-02-2016, 04:12 AM
It seems that for whatever reason the police did not consider Hutch for the role of Lewis's lurker; did not treat Lewis's lurker as a potential suspect; or if they did, their enquiries led nowhere and the paperwork is - er - missing.


Hi Caz.

On a street full of doss-houses, a man standing by himself watching people pass would be common. It is only us today who try to paint it as "suspicious".

If you recall, Macdonald barely showed anything more than a passing interest in Lewis's "loiterer", in fact he showed more interest, and posed more questions about the man she passed outside the Britannia.

In her police statement Sarah Lewis described the Britannia man as "suspicious", not the loiterer, and quite naturally Macdonald picked up on this in his questioning:

[Coroner] Have you seen any suspicious persons in the district ?

Yet we have no surviving paperwork concerning a police search for this man.

The police had no cause to search for the loiterer because of three possibilities:
1 - Hutchinson admitted to being this man.
2 - The police did not consider the man to be "suspicious", or
3 - The description of the loiterer provided by Lewis was next to useless for identity purposes.

Abby Normal
04-04-2016, 08:59 AM
Yes and no, Abby.


Try looking at the issue from a slightly different perspective, Abby. Hutchinson lived but a stone’s throw from Dorset Street and probably frequented the district’s drinking dens. Sarah, too, was a local and was sufficiently well acquainted with Miller’s Court that she was able to secure a bed there in the small hours of the morning. Thus I think it more than plausible that Hutchinson knew Sarah by sight, recognized her on the night of the Kelly murder, saw her enter Shoreditch Town Hall on the day of the inquest, realized that she was an official witness and simply assumed the worst.

We, of course, are aware that the authorities’ principal interest in Sarah lay in her evidence relating to the cry of ‘Murder!’, which in all likelihood indicated the approximate time of death. Hutchinson, however, was not privy to such information. Thus, in his ignorance, he perhaps assumed that Sarah’s evidence related to her sighting of the wideawake man she saw monitoring the court shortly before the murder – in other words, Hutchinson himself. On this basis he may have supposed that Wideawake had assumed significance in the murder enquiry and began to fear that Sarah might have recognized him too. Even if she didn’t know his name she would have been aware that he lived and socialized locally. Worse still, she would almost certainly have been able to identify him in the event that he was picked up amid a police trawl of local pubs and lodging houses.

Albeit speculative, this scenario provides what to my mind is the most persuasive explanation as to why Hutchinson came forward when he did, and why he did so with the palpably absurd story involving Astrakhan and Kelly. It does not require that Hutchinson knew anything of Sarah’s police statement or inquest testimony. It merely requires that he knew she had become an official witness.

Everything about Hutchinson’s police statement appears to have been geared up to provide justification for his presence on Dorset Street shortly before the murder – not least the inclusion of an archetypal pantomime villain. To my mind this provides a clear indication that it was a fear of the potential consequences of the Lewis sighting that motivated him to come forward. No mention to investigators of his having wandered into Miller’s Court shortly before three o’clock. That particular revelation only emerged later after Hutchinson had had the time to consider his position a little more thoughtfully. Perhaps this is something that ought to be borne in mind by those who believe that George was a misunderstood individual who was merely doing his civic duty.

OK-got it. Thanks!
yes-seems about right to me!!

Fleetwood Mac
04-04-2016, 12:16 PM
Yes and no, Abby.


Try looking at the issue from a slightly different perspective, Abby. Hutchinson lived but a stone’s throw from Dorset Street and probably frequented the district’s drinking dens. Sarah, too, was a local and was sufficiently well acquainted with Miller’s Court that she was able to secure a bed there in the small hours of the morning. Thus I think it more than plausible that Hutchinson knew Sarah by sight, recognized her on the night of the Kelly murder, saw her enter Shoreditch Town Hall on the day of the inquest, realized that she was an official witness and simply assumed the worst.

We, of course, are aware that the authorities’ principal interest in Sarah lay in her evidence relating to the cry of ‘Murder!’, which in all likelihood indicated the approximate time of death. Hutchinson, however, was not privy to such information. Thus, in his ignorance, he perhaps assumed that Sarah’s evidence related to her sighting of the wideawake man she saw monitoring the court shortly before the murder – in other words, Hutchinson himself. On this basis he may have supposed that Wideawake had assumed significance in the murder enquiry and began to fear that Sarah might have recognized him too. Even if she didn’t know his name she would have been aware that he lived and socialized locally. Worse still, she would almost certainly have been able to identify him in the event that he was picked up amid a police trawl of local pubs and lodging houses.

Albeit speculative, this scenario provides what to my mind is the most persuasive explanation as to why Hutchinson came forward when he did, and why he did so with the palpably absurd story involving Astrakhan and Kelly. It does not require that Hutchinson knew anything of Sarah’s police statement or inquest testimony. It merely requires that he knew she had become an official witness.

Everything about Hutchinson’s police statement appears to have been geared up to provide justification for his presence on Dorset Street shortly before the murder – not least the inclusion of an archetypal pantomime villain. To my mind this provides a clear indication that it was a fear of the potential consequences of the Lewis sighting that motivated him to come forward. No mention to investigators of his having wandered into Miller’s Court shortly before three o’clock. That particular revelation only emerged later after Hutchinson had had the time to consider his position a little more thoughtfully. Perhaps this is something that ought to be borne in mind by those who believe that George was a misunderstood individual who was merely doing his civic duty.

The problem with that is he would have had two bites at the cherry if he had kept his head down - had he been the killer.

First off, keep his head down and hope he wasn't recognised.

Second chance, in the event he was recognised then he could come up with a **** and bull story.

Putting himself at the scene gives him only one way out.

Although some people argue that killers inject themselves into a crime investigation, many more don't. And crucially not many murderers place themselves at a crime scene during a conversation with the police.

The likelihood is that he was in for a few quid, although I wouldn't rule out the possibility that what he said is what he saw.

caz
04-05-2016, 06:26 AM
If Hutch had only given his account to the police I might have been a bit more open to his motives being sinister. But the fact that he willingly gave a more detailed story to a reporter so soon afterwards gives me pause. What would the killer have had to gain from that? Putting himself virtually at the crime scene for all the world - and the police, indirectly and belatedly - to see would perhaps not be the wisest act if he didn't want to begin raising eyebrows which had been very nicely in place thank you following his initial statement and interrogation.

The argument typically is that he began worrying that a witness - Cox or Lewis, for example - may have seen him much closer to Kelly's room. But if that were the case it would be something the police would look into, not the reading public, so Hutch's best bet would have been to go back to the police with this additional info with an apology for not making his movements clearer - and avoid giving the press what would look like a conflicting and (to certain modern eyes at least) a potentially incriminating account.

If Hutch was in it for the hope of making some money it all makes more sense. A more dramatic story for the papers, putting himself right at the heart of things (sorry!), could easily have been designed with that money in mind. He must surely have realised that the police would only be generous if they actually found a likely suspect who was a good fit for the man he had described. Otherwise his luck rested with the press.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
04-05-2016, 06:29 AM
Hi Caz.

On a street full of doss-houses, a man standing by himself watching people pass would be common. It is only us today who try to paint it as "suspicious".

If you recall, Macdonald barely showed anything more than a passing interest in Lewis's "loiterer", in fact he showed more interest, and posed more questions about the man she passed outside the Britannia.

In her police statement Sarah Lewis described the Britannia man as "suspicious", not the loiterer, and quite naturally Macdonald picked up on this in his questioning:

[Coroner] Have you seen any suspicious persons in the district ?

Yet we have no surviving paperwork concerning a police search for this man.

The police had no cause to search for the loiterer because of three possibilities:
1 - Hutchinson admitted to being this man.
2 - The police did not consider the man to be "suspicious", or
3 - The description of the loiterer provided by Lewis was next to useless for identity purposes.

Cheers, Jon.

Fair points all, and it doesn't look like Hutch the Ripper need have had any fear of being tracked down, identified and grilled as a suspect, had he merely continued to stay away from the limelight he wasn't actually in.

Love,

Caz
X

Garry Wroe
04-09-2016, 02:06 PM
I have always found it tricky to believe he could have known the full extent of Lewis's account, recognised himself and tailored a story to explain why he was watching and waiting there, while hoping nobody would think he was the same man Lewis saw.
I tend to think, Caz, that he assumed investigators would link him to Wideawake, hence the Astrakhan story which provided an innocent explanation for his presence and demeanour on Dorset Street as witnessed by Sarah Lewis.

It seems that for whatever reason the police did not consider Hutch for the role of Lewis's lurker; did not treat Lewis's lurker as a potential suspect; or if they did, their enquiries led nowhere and the paperwork is - er - missing.
Forget any missing paperwork, Caz. The simple fact of the matter is that neither the police, the press, nor Coroner MacDonald suspected Wideawake of having any involvement in the Kelly murder. As far as I’m aware the Hutchinson-Wideawake connection wasn’t made until the 1970s when either Colin Wilson or Don Rumbelow made reference to it. My suspicion, therefore, is that Wideawake was assumed by investigators to have been a Crossingham’s lodger up to nothing more sinister than taking a breath of air.

Oh and the fact that neither Lewis nor Cox appear to have realised that Hutch must have been the man they saw, from the various newspaper accounts (or if they did they kept their traps well shut for a change), makes it doubtful that Hutch thought they knew him or had seen him about locally, and could have got him identified had he failed to come forward of his own accord.
Perhaps you should re-read my earlier posts, Caz. First of all, Mrs Cox saw no-one in the court as she made her final homeward journey on the night in question. The scenario I have proposed is that Hutchinson was lurking by Kelly’s windows as Cox passed by. Although he was hidden amongst the shadows, I think it likely that it later crossed his mind that he might have been seen and thus amended his story when speaking to reporters. This would explain why he made no mention of entering the court proper when dictating his police statement, but later told a journalist that he’d stood directly outside Kelly’s room for several minutes shortly before departing the scene at three o’clock or thereabouts.

With respect, Caz, you also appear to be missing the point with regard to Sarah Lewis. The hypothesis I outlined in an earlier post involved Hutchinson knowing Sarah by sight. He might have seen her from time to time on the street, at the various markets, or in the local shops or drinking dens. He recognized her as she made her way to the Keylers but attached little or no significance to the incident. Three days later, however, when he saw Sarah enter the Shoreditch Town Hall, it dawned on him that she had become a police witness and he wrongly assumed that her relevance to the investigation related to the Wideawake sighting. He now began to fear that she had recognized him too. Even if Sarah didn’t know his name she perhaps knew where he shopped, socialized, or possibly where he lived. She didn’t need to know him in the strictest sense of the word. A description of him circulated amongst the local shops, pubs and lodging houses would almost certainly throw up his name. Once it had Sarah would be able to identify him. Or so Hutchinson feared.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what Sarah knew or saw. The issue is what Hutchinson imagined she might seen or known. This is of special significance when one reads Hutchinson’s police statement. Everything about this account signifies an attempt on Hutchinson’s part to justify his presence on Dorset Street at a time when Sarah Lewis was making her way to the Keylers. Why else would he have concocted the palpably absurd story involving Kelly and Astrakhan if not to explain his presence and demeanour on Dorset Street as observed by Sarah?

Whatever one may think of the above, the one inescapable fact is that Hutchinson failed to come forward for three days following the death of Mary Kelly. Something obviously brought him out of the woodwork. I’m simply exploring the possibilities as to what that trigger might have been.

Ben
04-09-2016, 04:57 PM
Hi Caz,

"And here's the rub, because if he volunteered his story to the police and every eagle-eyed journalist on the planet, as a direct result of what Sarah Lewis saw, he was inviting everyone to register the connection, without saying a word about it himself, and was surely anticipating that someone would register it, upon which he would 'naturally have been treated with suspicion' - the same suspicion he supposedly came forward to avoid".

Only if he failed to get his "innocent" story in first.

I quite agree that he had every reason to expect the press to both register and allude very publicly to the Lewis connection (in the event neither happened, which was a stroke of good fortune if he really was there and up to no good), but having offered his story voluntarily, he was in a position to respond to anyone who inferred a connection with "Yep, you see? Right where I said I was, and doing exactly what I said I was doing". He certainly wouldn't have expected the actual outcome - that his account was ultimately discredited as the offerings of a probable time-waster. This would have been quite the fortuitous result if he was the murderer, and only made possible by the failure of police and press to explore the possibility that he was Lewis's wideawake man.

My views are not particularly at variance with Garry's with regard to Hutchinson and Lewis. I've suggested on several occasions that he may have seen Lewis enter the Shoreditch town hall as a witness and "assumed the worst", as Garry put it. He raised another interesting point, though, and one I hadn't previously considered. If Hutchinson had no means of accessing Lewis's evidence (because he didn't attend the inquest, and because her statement hadn't appeared in the papers by the time he came forward), he may well have assumed that wideawake man would be the central focus of her evidence, as opposed to the brief footnote it ended up being. He would not have bargained on the bulk of her evidence being more concerned with the spooky black bag man who had accosted her the previous Wednesday.

It should come as no surprise that scant attention was paid at the time to Wideawake. It was not uncommon to see men loitering near lodging house entrances, and this particular loiterer wasn't even observed in the company of a woman, less still the actual victim. This marginalisation of the wideawake man - and understandable preoccupation instead with men observed with women - may go some way to explaining the failure of the contemporary police and press to register (what we now consider to be) very strong similarities between the reported location and behaviour of wideawake man, and those of Hutchinson.

Again though, Hutchinson could not have anticipated such an outcome, and had no way of knowing that Mr. Widewake would not be the central bogeyman of Lewis's account.

Oh and the fact that neither Lewis nor Cox appear to have realised that Hutch must have been the man they saw, from the various newspaper accounts (or if they did they kept their traps well shut for a change), makes it doubtful that Hutch thought they knew him or had seen him about locally, and could have got him identified had he failed to come forward of his own accord.

Why would Lewis inform the police that she suspected that Hutchinson of being the loitering man (and there's no evidence that she did)? If she read the account in the papers, she would probably have registered the very positive response it received, accepted Hutchinson as the genuine witness everyone took him for at that early stage, and assumed that the police had already registered the connection without her "help". She would have come away with the impression that one eyewitness (herself) just happened to cross paths with another on the night of the murder. Approaching the police as an amateur sleuth and pointing out something already in the public domain would have been unnecessary and supererogatory, irrespective of whether or not she "knew him or had seen him about locally".

I'm not sure what you mean, incidentally, about Lewis and Cox "keeping their traps well shut for a change". Sarah Lewis was, by all accounts, a very reluctant witness who might well have kept her trap firmly shut had she not been detained in the court by the police before she had an opportunity to leave it on the morning of the murder. She was also one of the few Millers Court witnesses not to go blabbing to the press.

The argument typically is that he began worrying that a witness - Cox or Lewis, for example - may have seen him much closer to Kelly's room. But if that were the case it would be something the police would look into, not the reading public, so Hutch's best bet would have been to go back to the police with this additional info with an apology for not making his movements clearer - and avoid giving the press what would look like a conflicting and (to certain modern eyes at least) a potentially incriminating account.

No, I disagree.

Returning to the police station with such obvious bum-covering "tidy-up" efforts as "Hello, me again - I might have omitted to mention that I stood directly outside the victim's window" would only have invited suspicion. At least by communicating with the press, he could always protest that he had been misquoted or misunderstood if the police ever confronted him with the apparent contradictions; or failing that, claim he included that "extra" information because the journalist just happened to quiz him along those particular lines (I know one of my regular debating opponents considers the latter a perfectly reasonable explanation for the various press/statement discrepancies).

I'm not suggesting the press interview was necessarily the most prudent move on Hutchinson's part if he was the killer, but he might have considered it a necessary evil if he still harboured concerns that he had been clocked by a witness entering the court.

The suggested "financial" motive is all very well, but its fatal flaw lies in its dismissal of Hutchinson as Lewis's man, which, short of astonishing "coincidence", he clearly was.

On the other hand, if he had an overwhelming compulsion to do the deed regardless, or had no fear at the time of any witnesses such as Lewis or Cox seeing him, or didn't know he had been caught watching, he must have had considerable misgivings afterwards to put himself under the spotlight and try to put a plaster over it all, with the sensational statements he made to the police and the press.

Well, at this remove it is difficult to speculate at what stage this particular serial killer's "overwhelming compulsion" overrode more prudent considerations, and I'm no psychologist, but it is quite possible that Hutchinson - if the killer - was emotionally beyond the point of no return by that stage. I've suggested before that if the "murder" cry heard at approximately 4.00am by Lewis and Prater signalled the time of Kelly's death, it is possible that the killer, having previously monitored the various comings and goings to the court in the small hours, elected to "stall" his activities until he could be reasonably safe in the assumption that those pesky female witnesses had settled to sleep. Mary Cox, remember, made her final return trip at 3.00am.

Talking of sleep, just a minor point to conclude with; you suggested to Abby that if Hutchinson was lying about his presence there that night and was instead tucked up in bed, there would have been fellow lodgers to "confirm" as much. This is unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, if proof had been secured that he was snoozing in the Victoria Home when he claimed to have been out Astrakhan-spotting, his account would have been rejected outright, as opposed to being merely "reduced" in importance, as the Echo gleaned from the police. Secondly, unless Hutchinson was an especially gregarious soul who everyone took notice of, his presence or otherwise in the building was unlikely to have been registered. The Victoria Home saw some 500 lodgers doss down at varying hours of the night, and even boasted single "cubicles" for a few pence extra. Unless people were actively keeping tabs on Hutchinson, his dossing down (or not) would have passed unnoticed.

All the best,
Ben

Columbo
04-09-2016, 05:16 PM
Hutchinson has always fascinated me since he wasn't(as far as we know)considered a suspect.

Here's another idea that can throw fuel on the fire. Suppose Hutch made up Astrakhan man (which I believe he did) to cover up murdering MJK?

Let's say he waited until her last customer left, went into her room for a freebie. She fights, he kills her and tries to make it a copy-cat killing?

Ben
04-09-2016, 05:23 PM
Hi Fleets,

The problem with that is he would have had two bites at the cherry if he had kept his head down - had he been the killer.

First off, keep his head down and hope he wasn't recognised.

Second chance, in the event he was recognised then he could come up with a **** and bull story.

Putting himself at the scene gives him only one way out.

But surely you can see that a "****-and-bull story" stands a far greater chance of being accepted if offered voluntarily by a witness, as opposed to being the "excuse" used by a suspect to explain away his loitering presence outside a crime scene? That is why serial killers come forward as "witnesses" - to pre-empt possible suspicion and deflect it, not wait for it to arrive and only then resort to subterfuge.

Although some people argue that killers inject themselves into a crime investigation, many more don't.

According to what statistics?

"Injecting" oneself into an investigation can take a variety of different forms, including the writing of taunting letters to the police, as some argue the ripper did. In this case, however, we're talking about killers coming forward with bogus eyewitness accounts after learning of a potentially incriminating link to a crime, which is obviously very situation-specific. If you wish to argue that such behaviour is too rare amongst serial killers to be considered a likely manoeuvre in the case, you would need to demonstrate that the supposedly "many more" killers who didn't adopt the strategy ever found themselves in the sort of predicament - i.e. being observed loitering near a crime scene - where the option even presented itself.

Otherwise, it's a bit like arguing that an Inuit is statistically unlikely to hunt for seal because most people in the world don't.

I have no idea what percentage of serialists adopt false guises as witnesses and informants, but it must be a rather significant one, otherwise an expert in criminal psychology such as John Douglas would not have accurately predicted that an unidentified offender would do precisely that, as occurred a few decades ago.

Regards,
Ben

Garry Wroe
04-10-2016, 09:23 AM
Let's say he waited until her last customer left, went into her room for a freebie. She fights, he kills her and tries to make it a copy-cat killing?
The kind of injuries inflicted upon the body of Mary Kelly, Columbo, evidence a manifestly disturbed mind. Whoever perpetrated this murder was not an everyday Joe who sought to cover up his handiwork by emulating the Ripper's crime scene characteristics.

Aside from this, press coverage of the inquest hearings mean that it was widely known that the Ripper had departed crime scenes with the ureri of several of the previous victims. One would assume, therefore, that had Mary Jane's killer been a Ripper copycat, he too would have taken away a portion of genitalia. It didn't happen.

Garry Wroe
04-10-2016, 09:39 AM
If Hutchinson had no means of accessing Lewis's evidence (because he didn't attend the inquest, and because her statement hadn't appeared in the papers by the time he came forward), he may well have assumed that wideawake man would be the central focus of her evidence, as opposed to the brief footnote it ended up being. He would not have bargained on the bulk of her evidence being more concerned with the spooky black bag man who had accosted her the previous Wednesday.
Precisely, Ben. Now re-read Hutchinson's police statement and it should be obvious that everything therein is designed to explain away the Lewis sighting.

c.d.
04-10-2016, 09:42 AM
[QUOTE=Garry Wroe;376486]The kind of injuries inflicted upon the body of Mary Kelly, Columbo, evidence a manifestly disturbed mind. Whoever perpetrated this murder was not an everyday Joe who sought to cover up his handiwork by emulating the Ripper's crime scene characteristics.

Exactly. And if it had been a copy-cat killing why take the time to cut off her breasts and cut the flesh from her thigh? Much better to cut her throat, rip out an organ and get the hell out of there. That would have been sufficient.

c.d.

Garry Wroe
04-10-2016, 09:49 AM
Precisely, CD. Even today there are those who argue that Kelly was not a Ripper victim courtesy of the dissimilarities between the injuries she sustained and those which were meted out to the previous victims.

Abby Normal
04-12-2016, 09:05 AM
Hi Caz,



Only if he failed to get his "innocent" story in first.

I quite agree that he had every reason to expect the press to both register and allude very publicly to the Lewis connection (in the event neither happened, which was a stroke of good fortune if he really was there and up to no good), but having offered his story voluntarily, he was in a position to respond to anyone who inferred a connection with "Yep, you see? Right where I said I was, and doing exactly what I said I was doing". He certainly wouldn't have expected the actual outcome - that his account was ultimately discredited as the offerings of a probable time-waster. This would have been quite the fortuitous result if he was the murderer, and only made possible by the failure of police and press to explore the possibility that he was Lewis's wideawake man.

My views are not particularly at variance with Garry's with regard to Hutchinson and Lewis. I've suggested on several occasions that he may have seen Lewis enter the Shoreditch town hall as a witness and "assumed the worst", as Garry put it. He raised another interesting point, though, and one I hadn't previously considered. If Hutchinson had no means of accessing Lewis's evidence (because he didn't attend the inquest, and because her statement hadn't appeared in the papers by the time he came forward), he may well have assumed that wideawake man would be the central focus of her evidence, as opposed to the brief footnote it ended up being. He would not have bargained on the bulk of her evidence being more concerned with the spooky black bag man who had accosted her the previous Wednesday.

It should come as no surprise that scant attention was paid at the time to Wideawake. It was not uncommon to see men loitering near lodging house entrances, and this particular loiterer wasn't even observed in the company of a woman, less still the actual victim. This marginalisation of the wideawake man - and understandable preoccupation instead with men observed with women - may go some way to explaining the failure of the contemporary police and press to register (what we now consider to be) very strong similarities between the reported location and behaviour of wideawake man, and those of Hutchinson.

Again though, Hutchinson could not have anticipated such an outcome, and had no way of knowing that Mr. Widewake would not be the central bogeyman of Lewis's account.



Why would Lewis inform the police that she suspected that Hutchinson of being the loitering man (and there's no evidence that she did)? If she read the account in the papers, she would probably have registered the very positive response it received, accepted Hutchinson as the genuine witness everyone took him for at that early stage, and assumed that the police had already registered the connection without her "help". She would have come away with the impression that one eyewitness (herself) just happened to cross paths with another on the night of the murder. Approaching the police as an amateur sleuth and pointing out something already in the public domain would have been unnecessary and supererogatory, irrespective of whether or not she "knew him or had seen him about locally".

I'm not sure what you mean, incidentally, about Lewis and Cox "keeping their traps well shut for a change". Sarah Lewis was, by all accounts, a very reluctant witness who might well have kept her trap firmly shut had she not been detained in the court by the police before she had an opportunity to leave it on the morning of the murder. She was also one of the few Millers Court witnesses not to go blabbing to the press.



No, I disagree.

Returning to the police station with such obvious bum-covering "tidy-up" efforts as "Hello, me again - I might have omitted to mention that I stood directly outside the victim's window" would only have invited suspicion. At least by communicating with the press, he could always protest that he had been misquoted or misunderstood if the police ever confronted him with the apparent contradictions; or failing that, claim he included that "extra" information because the journalist just happened to quiz him along those particular lines (I know one of my regular debating opponents considers the latter a perfectly reasonable explanation for the various press/statement discrepancies).

I'm not suggesting the press interview was necessarily the most prudent move on Hutchinson's part if he was the killer, but he might have considered it a necessary evil if he still harboured concerns that he had been clocked by a witness entering the court.

The suggested "financial" motive is all very well, but its fatal flaw lies in its dismissal of Hutchinson as Lewis's man, which, short of astonishing "coincidence", he clearly was.



Well, at this remove it is difficult to speculate at what stage this particular serial killer's "overwhelming compulsion" overrode more prudent considerations, and I'm no psychologist, but it is quite possible that Hutchinson - if the killer - was emotionally beyond the point of no return by that stage. I've suggested before that if the "murder" cry heard at approximately 4.00am by Lewis and Prater signalled the time of Kelly's death, it is possible that the killer, having previously monitored the various comings and goings to the court in the small hours, elected to "stall" his activities until he could be reasonably safe in the assumption that those pesky female witnesses had settled to sleep. Mary Cox, remember, made her final return trip at 3.00am.

Talking of sleep, just a minor point to conclude with; you suggested to Abby that if Hutchinson was lying about his presence there that night and was instead tucked up in bed, there would have been fellow lodgers to "confirm" as much. This is unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, if proof had been secured that he was snoozing in the Victoria Home when he claimed to have been out Astrakhan-spotting, his account would have been rejected outright, as opposed to being merely "reduced" in importance, as the Echo gleaned from the police. Secondly, unless Hutchinson was an especially gregarious soul who everyone took notice of, his presence or otherwise in the building was unlikely to have been registered. The Victoria Home saw some 500 lodgers doss down at varying hours of the night, and even boasted single "cubicles" for a few pence extra. Unless people were actively keeping tabs on Hutchinson, his dossing down (or not) would have passed unnoticed.

All the best,
Ben

a very sensible post Ben.

Just one note on this-

I've suggested before that if the "murder" cry heard at approximately 4.00am by Lewis and Prater signalled the time of Kelly's death, it is possible that the killer, having previously monitored the various comings and goings to the court in the small hours, elected to "stall" his activities until he could be reasonably safe in the assumption that those pesky female witnesses had settled to sleep. Mary Cox, remember, made her final return trip at 3.00am.


If hutch was the killer and waiting man, I think he was waiting obviously for a reason--for someone to leave marys room-Blotchy. he waited 45 minutes and left like he said. But came back around an hour later, realized marys previous guest had left, gained entrance to her room and killed her. Hence the heard screams around 4:00am.

David Orsam
04-12-2016, 09:39 AM
Sarah Lewis was, by all accounts, a very reluctant witness who might well have kept her trap firmly shut had she not been detained in the court by the police before she had an opportunity to leave it on the morning of the murder. She was also one of the few Millers Court witnesses not to go blabbing to the press.

Is that right though? If she was, as I think she must have been, the woman referred to as "Mrs Kennedy" then she did speak to at least one journalist, and possibly more, on 10 November.

Wickerman
04-12-2016, 02:07 PM
I'd be very interested in this new information, namely all these accounts that suggest Sarah Lewis was a reluctant witness, any more than the average witness.

Ben
04-19-2016, 05:06 AM
If hutch was the killer and waiting man, I think he was waiting obviously for a reason--for someone to leave marys room-Blotchy. he waited 45 minutes and left like he said. But came back around an hour later, realized marys previous guest had left, gained entrance to her room and killed her. Hence the heard screams around 4:00am.


Agreed, Abby - if Hutchinson/wideawake was the killer, the above is an equally plausible explanation for the "delay" between Lewis's sighting and the cry of "murder" an hour of so later.

Ben
04-19-2016, 05:08 AM
Is that right though? If she was, as I think she must have been, the woman referred to as "Mrs Kennedy" then she did speak to at least one journalist, and possibly more, on 10 November.

Hi David,

It's quite possible that Lewis and Kennedy were one and the same, although I personally favour the alternative explanation offered by Philip Sugden that Mrs. Kennedy was one of a handful of women who, according to a report in the Star, attempted to pass of a witness account "as their own experience". While Lewis is not specifically cited as the originator of the account being parroted, it included a cry of "murder", according to the report, and the only other witness to mention such a cry - Elizabeth Prater - did not have suspiciously similar version of her story appear in the press under a different name, such as we see with Lewis-Kennedy.

Ben
04-19-2016, 05:13 AM
Hi Jon,

Good to see you back here. Hope all's well.

I'd be very interested in this new information, namely all these accounts that suggest Sarah Lewis was a reluctant witness, any more than the average witness.

"By all accounts" is a figure of speech meaning apparently or ostensibly, and shouldn't be taken literally. If I wrote that a man who fell out of plane should, by all accounts, be dead, that doesn't mean I've collated lots of published "accounts" to that effect; I'm simply inferring a likelihood.

All the best,
Ben

Wickerman
09-06-2016, 06:47 PM
..... according to a report in the Star, attempted to pass of a witness account "as their own experience". While Lewis is not specifically cited as the originator of the account being parroted, it included a cry of "murder", according to the report, and the only other witness to mention such a cry - Elizabeth Prater - did not have suspiciously similar version of her story appear in the press under a different name, such as we see with Lewis-Kennedy.

Lewis is not cited in the press before the inquest, but Mrs Kennedy is.

The women who are passing the cry of "murder" off as "their own experience" are not named in the article, but the originator of the story is indirectly referred to as Mrs Prater.

One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded.
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

With respect to my emphasis above, the next source named in the following sentence is Mrs Harvey who did not hear a cry of "murder", but after Harvey the next witness is Mrs Prater, who both lived there and heard the cry.

Therefore the, One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court, is, Mrs Prater.


Mrs Kennedy first appears several paragraphs further down the page, likely the result of being interviewed by a different journalist at a different time, and does not "live in the court", as the story by the previous journalist asserted, she was only a visitor - "Kennedy was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court".

Therefore, Mrs Kennedy was not the originator of the cry of "murder" story, and neither was she one of the dozen women accused of parroting the cry of "murder" story.

So, wrong on both counts.