Favoured Suspects

[Wickerman]

Thanks Wick and Garry. I've been doing a bunch of digging recently for a Schwartz essay in my book, finding all the references I could to viable suspects made by policemen. Schwartz is dead in the water after Nov. 1st and it occurred to me that even Hutch fared better than that. But apparently not much better.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom, are you interested in suspects or witnesses?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The Lloyds article tells us only that they believed Isaacs's appearance "answered" to Hutchinson's description; it certainly doesn't indicate that the police were interested in him for that reason, or that the latter were continuing to "work on" Hutchinson's description.

They clearly weren't by that stage.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks Wick and Garry. I've been doing a bunch of digging recently for a Schwartz essay in my book, finding all the references I could to viable suspects made by policemen. Schwartz is dead in the water after Nov. 1st and it occurred to me that even Hutch fared better than that. But apparently not much better.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi Garry, long time, no speak. I was curious if you would happen to know when/where the last reference to Hutchinson as a witness was made. I was curious to know when he ceased to be viewed by police as a viable witness.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom.

The last press account that comes to mind, where his name is mentioned is dated Nov. 19th:

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19th Nov. 1888.

However, the last press article which indicates the police were still working on the description offered by Hutchinson by saying the suspect..."whose appearance certainly answered to the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."....though without mentioning Hutchinson by name, is dated 16th December 1888, in the Lloyds Weekly News.

After that the trail goes cold.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Tom. Hope you're keeping well. The vast majority of Hutchinson-related press references occurred during the days immediately following the Kelly inquest hearing. I seem to recall that one journal carried a sketch of the Hutchinson/Astrakhan/Kelly scene a few years after the Kelly murder, possibly in 1909. Other than that there was very little. When such references did occur they usually related to sightings made by members of the public of men who resembled the published description of Astrakhan.

As far as investigators were concerned, only Walter Dew referred to Hutchinson by name. The rest gave Hutchinson not so much as a backward glance. Anderson, of course, stated that the only person who ever got a decent look at Jack the Ripper was the Jewish witness who Swanson stated identified Kosminski. There again, Macnaghten stated that no-one ever got a good look at the murderer.

So there you go. Clear as mud.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Garry, long time, no speak. I was curious if you would happen to know when/where the last reference to Hutchinson as a witness was made. I was curious to know when he ceased to be viewed by police as a viable witness.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

Who are peoples favoured suspects and why?

The dark horse would be Cutbush.

We're not quite sure how much time he spent in the East End, but an inspector fancied him for the job and he fits my vision of the type of man JTR was. A touch of piquerism about him which JTR displayed. It appears to me that JTR was in it for his own peculiar dissection of the human body and what is known of Cutbush fits that, and interestingly he was locked up a few days after Coles - who I believe was a JTR killing.

[Garry Wroe]

Abberline knew the area, and the lighting conditions there in the LVP. We don't; we can only surmise. He may or may not have changed his mind later, but his documented remarks make it clear that, even if he did, there was nothing in Hutchinson's account to cause any immediate incredulity.

Several newspapers certainly expressed scepticism with reference to Hutchinson's version of events, Colin, not least because of the degree of micro-detail contained within the Astrakhan story. Neither should we forget that Hutchinson's official credibility appears to have taken a nosedive within twelve hours of his having presented himself at Commercial Street Police Station. Further down the line we can be sure beyond any shadow of doubt that his story came to be wholly rejected by investigators.

[curious4]

Hello Bridewell

Well, I can only plead the hairdresser who gave a perfect description of the Swedish Foreign minister's killer but was not believed because it was too detailed. Such witnesses do exist, but whether Hutch was one is hard to prove or disprove.

Best regards
C4

[Bridewell]

Always thought of Hutch as fairly respectable.

Best regards
C4

Hi Curious,

He may have been respectable. He may also have invented Astrakhan, but the assumption (by some) that he did so just because he goes into a lot of detail worries me. It suggests that, had he given a more vague description, his account would be more easily accepted. His account should be treated with some caution - but not, in my view, completely discounted.

[Bridewell]

But it wouldn't explain his superman ability - given the amount of time and light available - to see the accoutrements that he was supposed to have then committed to memory, or the implausibility of a man venturing into that district so accoutred at that time, or the abandonment by the police of the Astrakhan suspect.

All the best,
Ben

It could be argued that, as Abberline was "of (the) opinion his story is true", no superman ability was needed and that a man of such appearance in the area was not that unusual.

Abberline knew the area, and the lighting conditions there in the LVP. We don't; we can only surmise. He may or may not have changed his mind later, but his documented remarks make it clear that, even if he did, there was nothing in Hutchinson's account to cause any immediate incredulity.

[Ben]

"I don't think cost was a big issue when looking for Jack"

Granted, but confirming whether or not Hutchinson was in Romford on Thursday 7th wouldn't have taken the hunt for Jack any step closer; nor would it have confirmed any aspect of the events he alleged to have witnessed.

"No, but an intention to mug said punter on his way out would be a valid reason, albeit not a lawful one. It would also explain both his detailed observation of the man's attire and its (valuable) accoutrements as well as his reluctance/tardiness in coming forward."

But it wouldn't explain his superman ability - given the amount of time and light available - to see the accoutrements that he was supposed to have then committed to memory, or the implausibility of a man venturing into that district so accoutred at that time, or the abandonment by the police of the Astrakhan suspect.

All the best,
Ben

[robhouse]

Just a quick note. It seems much more likely that the suspect watched by DC Cox was Kozminski, than Levy for example.

Rob House

[curious4]

Hello Bridewell

Yes, you could be right, but wasn't the Victoria home a more respectable lodging house with strict rules and at least an effort to keep out "undesirables", that is known criminals? Always thought of Hutch as fairly respectable.

Best regards
C4

[Bridewell]

Hi C4,

Well no, not really.

Being surprised at seeing a well-dressed man in Kelly's company was not a particularly "valid reason" for loitering outside Miller's Court for 45 minutes "to see if they came out"; in fact, it's not a "reason" at all.

No, but an intention to mug said punter on his way out would be a valid reason, albeit not a lawful one. It would also explain both his detailed observation of the man's attire and its (valuable) accoutrements as well as his reluctance/tardiness in coming forward.

The 'local unknown' is my preferred suspect; probably one who trained as a butcher but was no longer working as one and thus slipped through the net when enquiries were made at butchers' premises. Someone of a similar background to Joseph William Haines (one of the Buckle Street butchers on the 1881 census).