The press, what they knew and how they knew it.

[Wickerman]

.... By the time he came forward he knew of her murder so if he really saw her with a man there would be no need to embellish as any man of any appearance would do-her killer was Jack the freaken ripper.

This man may have been dressed the same on Sunday as he was Friday. Naturally Hutchinson will see more detail in daylight on Sunday than he could on Friday at night.
The description he gave to Abberline then could quite easily be a composite of the two sightings, especially if he was dressed the same.

Its one thing to suggest he may have lied, but when there is nothing contradictory in his two statements and nothing unbelievable either, then there is no basis to suggest he lied.
The only basis that exists today (which did not exist at the time), is that some choose to push him as a suspect which naturally relies on making him out to be a liar.

So 'we' invent the lies to support our theories....(yawn).

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Do you have any evidence for your assertion that it is only a "teeny-tiny minority of serial killers who come forward to try and shift any suspicion before it lands on them"..? I don't have the exact facts and figures (who does?), but your claim seems incredibly unlikely considering that within the already "teeny-tiny" portion of the population who are known serial killers, you can find quite a number of examples of the phenomenon you describe. Moreover, it's impossible to accept that experts and advisers in serial crime should have successfully predicted that certain offenders would do precisely what you describe (and spend crucial resources laying traps in anticipation of such behaviour) unless it was a fairly well established and well-documented trait...which it clearly is, and certainly more so than "commuter" serial killers who keep venturing from afar into the same small, concentrated kill zone.

Your suggestion that it is the "vast majority who put as much distance as humanly possible between themselves and the police" also ill-accords with what we know of other serial killers, many of whom derive pleasure from some sort of contact with, or proximity to, their pursuers.

Finally, what makes you think the police were looking in the wrong places? By focussing their investigations on the immediate vicinity of the murders, they were adopting the same approach as their modern counterparts, i.e. the prudent and obvious approach. The problem being, of course, that with the resources being as limited as they were for the police in 1888, a house-to-house search could easily alight on the real killer in some grotty doss house or other without anyone being the wiser. It would be quite wrong to assume that an unsuccessful swoop on the murder district means he must have lived elsewhere.

How about Hutchinson was merely surprised at seeing such a man in company with Kelly, because the men he usually saw with her looked a good deal shabbier?

What, because the hoards of men who paraded their expensive clothes and thick gold watch chains into one of London’s most notorious grotspots and robbers’ havens in the small hours when the ripper was active (and who therefore just BLENDED into the environment, naturally) usually turned their toffee noses up when Kelly offered her services? "Who? Me? Lord Fancy Pants? Consort with the youngest and prettiest prostitute I'm likely to find in this shytehole in the small hours of the morning? With my reputation? PAH! Don't you realise I'm only dressed up like this to attract attention from muggers and wannabe ripper-hunters? Stand aside!"

Seriously though, unless the above seems like a reasonable scenario, I'd say Garry's pretty well justified in assuming that the presence of a ridiculously opulently and ostentatiously-dressed man on those streets in the small hours is just as unlikely as a ridiculously opulently and ostentatiously-dressed man seen in the company of Kelly, who sauntered those same streets in the small hours. A rather meaningless distinction, in other words.

Should any doubt linger on the issue, here's what Hutchinson told the press, as reported in the Pall Mall Gazette on 14th November:

"My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer."

Because he was "so well-dressed", not because he looked out of place with Kelly specifically.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

This man may have been dressed the same on Sunday as he was Friday. Naturally Hutchinson will see more detail in daylight on Sunday than he could on Friday at night.
The description he gave to Abberline then could quite easily be a composite of the two sightings, especially if he was dressed the same.

Its one thing to suggest he may have lied, but when there is nothing contradictory in his two statements and nothing unbelievable either, then there is no basis to suggest he lied.
The only basis that exists today (which did not exist at the time), is that some choose to push him as a suspect which naturally relies on making him out to be a liar.

So 'we' invent the lies to support our theories....(yawn).

First of all hutch said he couldn't be sure the man on Sunday was the man so how could his description be a composite? He saw less, much less of the man on Sunday obviously.

Secondly, I think it's more likely that hutch was just a liar based on the facts and circumstances of the whole episode than he was a killer so your final point is null as it pertains to me at least.

[Ben]

First of all hutch said he couldn't be sure the man on Sunday was the man so how could his description be a composite?

Exactly, Abby.

Which makes the suggestion that Hutchinson's thoroughly discredited Astrakhan description is a "composite of two descriptions" all the more annoyingly preposterous.

“Oh look, there’s that scary man again. Same Astrakhan-trimmed coat, same “light buttons over button boots” , same horseshoe tie-pin, same dark eyelashes, same linen collar”, same "red stone seal".

And yet he only “fancied” that they were the same man and “could not be certain”? Implying that it could have been a different person wearing exactly the same clothes and accessories, and having the same facial features?

And of course, no reference to this at all in the police statement.

Puh-lease.

Contrary to Jon's ironclad, unconvincing, badly-thought-through assertion, there are excellent reasons for believing that Hutchinson lied in his account, and Jon's assertion that there is "nothing contradictory in his two statements" is provably false. A "pale complexion" is the polar opposite of a "dark complexion". A "slight moustache" is the polar opposite of a "heavy moustache", to cite two glaring examples of contradictory elements within "his two statements.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Dorset Street was very frequently and very publicly alluded to as one of the worst streets in London. Booth's poverty map reveals that it was considered "vicious" and "semi-criminal". Policeman were reportedly reluctant to pass through it at night time. It was choc-a-bloc with grotty lodging houses. Surely we get the picture. Of course there were people capable of dressing smartly "in the East End", but that doesn't mean they'd flash their bling in the most inadvisable circumstances possible.

Try to envisage this much feared (and rightly so) grotspot, and then add to the mix the fact that Jack the Ripper was on the prowl in the locality of that very grotspot. In addition to the aforementioned "vicious semi criminal" contingent, we must now consider plain-clothes policemen and a great many wannabe vigilantees roaming those very streets with the intention of targetting anyone who looked even vaguely out-of-place. Mull it over and then decide if it's really only a "gut feeling" that a lone man - let alone the real murderer! - would probably not parade around in ostentatious get-up (including a "thick gold chain" on unnecessary display) at that time and in that place.

Remember that this character's attire wasn't just that of an everyday misguided dandy. His appearance, clothing and accessories were comprised of just about every "bogeyman" attribute that had surfaced since the start of the murders: Jewish, sinister-looking, black bag of knife-shaped dimensions and so on. A less subtle amalgamation you'd be hard-pressed to encounter.

But if he had a knife it would all be okay because he could fend them off one by one, keep his lovely gold chain on proud display, continue to attract pointless attention from the very people he was seeking to avoid, and go on to kill a prostitute secure in the knowledge that his actions hadn't raised any sort of alarm.

Or not.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Spot-on.

I can't argue with that.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Exactly, Abby.

Which makes the suggestion that Hutchinson's thoroughly discredited Astrakhan description is a "composite of two descriptions" all the more annoyingly preposterous.

“Oh look, there’s that scary man again. Same Astrakhan-trimmed coat, same “light buttons over button boots” , same horseshoe tie-pin, same dark eyelashes, same linen collar”, same "red stone seal".

And yet he only “fancied” that they were the same man and “could not be certain”? Implying that it could have been a different person wearing exactly the same clothes and accessories, and having the same facial features?

And of course, no reference to this at all in the police statement.

Puh-lease.

Contrary to Jon's ironclad, unconvincing, badly-thought-through assertion, there are excellent reasons for believing that Hutchinson lied in his account, and Jon's assertion that there is "nothing contradictory in his two statements" is provably false. A "pale complexion" is the polar opposite of a "dark complexion". A "slight moustache" is the polar opposite of a "heavy moustache", to cite two glaring examples of contradictory elements within "his two statements.

Cheers,
Ben

So is standing out in Dorset street and standing by her door.

[Abby Normal]

Dorset Street was very frequently and very publicly alluded to as one of the worst streets in London. Booth's poverty map reveals that it was considered "vicious" and "semi-criminal". Policeman were reportedly reluctant to pass through it at night time. It was choc-a-bloc with grotty lodging houses. Surely we get the picture. Of course there were people capable of dressing smartly "in the East End", but that doesn't mean they'd flash their bling in the most inadvisable circumstances possible.

Try to envisage this much feared (and rightly so) grotspot, and then add to the mix the fact that Jack the Ripper was on the prowl in the locality of that very grotspot. In addition to the aforementioned "vicious semi criminal" contingent, we must now consider plain-clothes policemen and a great many wannabe vigilantees roaming those very streets with the intention of targetting anyone who looked even vaguely out-of-place. Mull it over and then decide if it's really only a "gut feeling" that a lone man - let alone the real murderer! - would probably not parade around in ostentatious get-up (including a "thick gold chain" on unnecessary display) at that time and in that place.

Remember that this character's attire wasn't just that of an everyday misguided dandy. His appearance, clothing and accessories were comprised of just about every "bogeyman" attribute that had surfaced since the start of the murders: Jewish, sinister-looking, black bag of knife-shaped dimensions and so on. A less subtle amalgamation you'd be hard-pressed to encounter.

But if he had a knife it would all be okay because he could fend them off one by one, keep his lovely gold chain on proud display, continue to attract pointless attention from the very people he was seeking to avoid, and go on to kill a prostitute secure in the knowledge that his actions hadn't raised any sort of alarm.

Or not.

Not
They tend to be cowards when confronted with anyone on equal basis, and try to blend in.

[Wickerman]

First of all hutch said he couldn't be sure the man on Sunday was the man so how could his description be a composite? He saw less, much less of the man on Sunday obviously.

You know the kind of 'not sure' he was talking about, the same kind of 'not sure' that Lawende spoke of.

Secondly, I think it's more likely that hutch was just a liar based on the facts and circumstances of the whole episode than he was a killer so your final point is null as it pertains to me at least.

Yes, that was not for your benefit.

[DVV]

Hello Dave.
It was in the later paragraph yes, that is true. Though why you think an out of work laborer would not be drawn to the Sunday morning market is a little strange. It was the docks or the market if you had no job.
Or is there something else you find unbelievable about it?
A contradiction?

Hi Jon,

it's all unbelievable. Here is a man nobody has ever seen, except Hutch. Not once, but twice.
And of course, after he went to the police, he never saw him again.

Note also that on Friday night, Hutch had the guts to follow him and to wait in the cold for 45 minutes.
But on Sunday, he didn't make any move.
Except going to the police station 36 hours later.
Note also that he did not mention that Sunday sighting on Monday.

Cheers

[Albert]

Hi everyone,
Just a thought - if the man Hutch 'saw' was a local hard man or villain then why wouldn't he dress in 'flash' clothes without fear of being attacked - I'm sure the Krays in their silk suits never had to worry about being mugged when they were out and about.
Cheers
Albert

[Ben]

Hi Albert,

If the individual in question was a local "heavy" or crimelord, it is unlikely, in my view, that he'd parade his expensive and ostentatious accessories into the worst area in the entirety of the East End, if not Greater London, especially in the small hours of the mornng...especially when walking alone...especially when hoards of wannabe (and genuine) vigilantees were extremely twitchy about anyone who seemed to be a conspicuous outsider, particularly those who dressed in a manner that mirrored the popular bogeymen/ripper image almost perfectly.

The local tough guys were men like "Squibby", and they certainly didn't attire themselves in a manner that was guaranteed to attract attention of the worst kind. They were more streetwise than that. I suspect these were the days before the advent of the flashy underworld King-Pin anyway.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi David.

Hi Jon,

it's all unbelievable. Here is a man nobody has ever seen, except Hutch.

I think what you mean to say is, no other witness saw this man that night?

There is no way we can claim "no-one ever saw him". Especially as Isaac's wore this same coat, was the right age, and lived just around the corner from Dorset St.
So clearly you have in Isaac's the existence of a local resident who adds credibility to Hutchinson's claim.

Note also that on Friday night, Hutch had the guts to follow him and to wait in the cold for 45 minutes.
But on Sunday, he didn't make any move.

If Hutch was working at a market stall shifting crates, he would lose his job if he just took off. But then what is the crisis?, the weekend papers suggested Kelly could have died as late as 9 o'clock Friday morning, so what could Astrachan possibly have had to do with it?

Note also that he did not mention that Sunday sighting on Monday.

He told the press the man lived in the neighborhood and included a Sunday morning sighting, should he have listed every time he has seen this man?
There's nothing important about seeing him Sunday. Abberline is really only concerned with what Hutchinson saw and heard on the night of the murder.

[Ben]

I agree entirely with your points, David.

Isaacs is an absolute non-starter when it comes to any sort of support for Hutchinson's Astrakhan story. He was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder, and cannot realistically have dressed anything like Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan. Nobody ever said Isaacs wore an Astrakhan coat; it was merely observed that he resembled someone who did - which, again, could amount to little more than a Jewish appearance and a slight (or heavy!) moustache.

Hutchinson's Sunday sighting is, as you suggest, deeply implausible, not least because he made no reference to it during his "interrogation" with Abberline. Unless Hutchinson was extremely selective in his newspaper reading, it is impossible to accept that he could have been swayed by the very few press reports suggesting Kelly had been killed much later in the morning, and even if he had been, his Astrakhan sighting was still of pivotal value had it been true. And yet we're expected to believe he failed to raise any sort of alarm when this "second sighting" supposedly occurred.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

... Nobody ever said Isaacs wore an Astrakhan coat; it was merely observed that he resembled someone who did - which, again, could amount to little more than a Jewish appearance and a slight (or heavy!) moustache.

Thats right Ben, they arrested every male, by the thousands, sporting a heavy dark moustache because they all looked like Astrachan, even without the coat...
(We are not dealing with the Keystone Cops here)

Hutchinson's Sunday sighting is, as you suggest, deeply implausible, not least because he made no reference to it during his "interrogation" with Abberline.

No!, you do not know what Hutchinson said to Abberline.

Ben, there are two issues here.

First, Hutchinson made a voluntary statement only offering what he thought relevant at the time. The witness is not questioned or prompted when making a voluntary statement.

Second, after the statement was made it was taken to Abberline who no doubt used it in the subsequent interview.
No record of that interview/interrogation has survived so we do not know what Hutchinson told Abberline.

Once again you try to make an argument from silence.

Try to remember, Hutchinson's statement is his offering to Badham, it is not the result of his later interview with Abberline.