Eyelashes?

[Bridewell]

Off topic.
I thought I'd ask, is "Bridewell" also a colloquial term at your end of the country for a holding cell, or pre-trial detention room?
I only recently discovered this term in use in Yorkshire and dammit, I grew up there, but don't recall anyone using the word when I was a kid.

Hi Jon,

I think 'Bridewell' is a generic term for a prison. In the modern era it seems to be used to describe a large-scale police custody suite. There are Bridewells in Leeds & Liverpool and probably elsewhere. I worked for a number of years in the Nottingham Bridewell which opened in 1995, but I believe the original was in Westminster.

Coming back to the topic under discussion, I think the madorosis explanation is an intriguing possibility.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

What about people who suffer from Alopecia? I recall that a character in the conspiracy trials for JFK, a David Ferrie, used to color in his eyelashes using some paint or some prosthetics because he had no eyebrows or lashes.

Cheers

Typically who lose their eyelashes have alopecia totalis. Consequently they have no hair at all. Which counts as unusual, especially since the eyebrows would also be gone. Those with only bald eyelashes tend to be either trichotillamanics, or have persistent eye problems. My sister had no eyelashes through her twenties because she had bad eye allergies, and essentially rubbed her eyes bald. They came back when she finally kicked the allergies.

[Cogidubnus]

The colloquial term for at least one of the syphlitic varieties is, I beleve, MEA or Moth Eaten Alopecia...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

I think 'Bridewell' is a generic term for a prison. In the modern era it seems to be used to describe a large-scale police custody suite. There are Bridewells in Leeds & Liverpool and probably elsewhere. I worked for a number of years in the Nottingham Bridewell which opened in 1995, but I believe the original was in Westminster.

Hi Colin

As you surmise wasn't it the former Bridewell Palace which was latterly a prison, and for which subsequent Bridewells were named?

The ultimate origin might be the holy St Bride's Well alleged to be near to or connected with the River Fleet...but this may be apocryphal...

All the best

Dave

[joelhall]

This is the argument which contends that, because he claims to have seen so much, Hutchinson cannot have seen anything at all?


The description is detailed but not, IMHO, wholly impossible, as he says he paid particular attention to the man's appearance and went out of his way to get a good look at him. Furthermore his presence is (apparently) corroborated by Mrs Lewis. Hutchinson may have been 'talking through his hat', but I don't see how it's possible to state it as the proverbial definitely ascertained fact.

Regards, Bridewell.

I have three major problems with this statement. Firstly, the man he describes seems very out of place with Dorset Street. The pubs were still open, others still roaming around, but nobody else saw anyone of this description. Given that Hutch thought it necessary to remember so much detail about this man, it culd be assumed that either: 1 - the man's appearence was highly unusual in this area, or 2 - he was worried for Kelly's safety. If so unusual, and with this description published, nobody else ever came forward to corroborate this man's existance.

Secondly, and carrying on from point 2, is that if he was close enough to Kelly to help her out with money, how was he unaware of the murder and it only occurred to him after the inquest to come forward? I mean by this point, the murders were the talk of London, and even overseas. You'd have to be living in a cave, wearing a blindfold and earplugs not to know of the murders. Yet somehow he is either unaware of the murder, or doesn't think anything of what he actually went out of his way to see, until after the inquest was published. Given that he went to lengths to look at this man, wait around to see if they returned, remembered so many details about the man, even admits that he watched Kelly, listened in to their conversation and followed them, even hanging about for 45 minutes - let's just say it seems a bit dubious. If I was that concerned about a lady I knew, I'd go check on her the next day, or at least a few days after. Remember that Hutch gives an account of his own actions in his statements, not just those of the suspect.

Lastly, Abberline himself seems to have acknowledged as important, then dismissed this statement - I forget where the link to this is now - in a short space of time.

[Wickerman]

Hi Joe.
If you're prepared to bear with me here, each one of your points can be addressed.

I have three major problems with this statement. Firstly, the man he describes seems very out of place with Dorset Street.

Well dressed men were not uncommon in the East end, most of them being Jewish largely because they run businesses in Whitechapel. You specify Dorset St.?, well, we have no reliable data to say one way or the other.
It is common here (on Casebook) that 'we' tend to think such a dive as Dorset St. would not be the place for a man like this to appear in such finery. That opinion is not backed up by any factual evidence, its only a gut feeling.
And, if he was the killer, with a knife like he had, what did he have to worry about?

The pubs were still open, others still roaming around, but nobody else saw anyone of this description.

The pubs had closed about midnight, no pubs were open at the time of Hutchinson's appearance in Commercial St.
No-one else came forward to say they had seen Astrachan, which is not the same as saying, "no-one else saw him".

Remember this Joe, the witnesses we read about are a very small number selected by the Coroner to attend his Inquest. They do not represent the total number of witnesses who gave statements to the police. Those records are long gone.
We do know from one press report that 53 person's had given statements to the police soley about seeing a well-dressed man in the area.
Among these were Mrs Kennedy, and possibly Mrs McCarthy, Mrs Paumier and Sarah Ronay, non of whom were asked to appear at the Inquest.

Given that Hutch thought it necessary to remember so much detail about this man, it culd be assumed that either: 1 - the man's appearance was highly unusual in this area, or 2 - he was worried for Kelly's safety. If so unusual, and with this description published, nobody else ever came forward to corroborate this man's existence.

Well Hutchinson does give his reason. He said, that it was "unusual to see Kelly in the company of such a well-dressed man".

Secondly, and carrying on from point 2, is that if he was close enough to Kelly to help her out with money, how was he unaware of the murder and it only occurred to him after the inquest to come forward?

If you check the press reports over the weekend, Sat. through to Monday, the press were speculating that Kelly might have been murdered as late as 9:00 am Friday morning. Press reports were so confused, the public had no idea when Mary Kelly had been murdered.
Therefore, because Hutchinson saw her between 2:00-2:30 am, why would he think 'Astrachan' was her killer, if she could have been killed as late as 9:00 am, fully six to seven hours later?

It is really pointless to suggest that 'any fine upstanding citizen would immediately go to the police'. Whitechapel was not predominantly inhabited by 'fine upstanding citizens'. You're dealing with a culture who are mostly in contention with authority, and in many cases have their own skeleton's in the closet.

Hutchinson did say he told his story to a policeman in the market Sunday morning, if true, the officer likely thought the same. It was only after the Inquest Monday night when the press had been given the idea Kelly might have died several hours earlier. But note, the Inquest still did not provide an actual 'Time of Death', just that the cry of "oh, murder", supposedly being heard between 3:30-4:00 am was the guiding factor.
Hutch. does tell us that someone at the Victoria Home suggested he go to the police, it wasn't on his own volition.

Lastly, Abberline himself seems to have acknowledged as important, then dismissed this statement - I forget where the link to this is now - in a short space of time.

Well, Abberline did not dismiss Hutchinson's statement.
Abberline was the lead interviewing officer, it was his job to interview, or head the interviewing, of lead suspects. Abberline accepted Hutchinson's story, and apparently had checked it in so far as possible.

Certain information which is not front and center, and was not known to the press was, that over the weekend Dr. Bond had wrote a report to Anderson, for Warren's attention, apparently with the collaboration of Dr. Phillips where the opinion was given that Kelly's likely Time of Death was between 1:00-2:00 am, which if taken as a guide by Scotland Yard effectively makes Hutchinson's statement redundant.
In this, there is no reflection on Hutchinson's character.

They could hardly pursue Astrachan when their principal medical authorities estimated a Time of Death, at the earliest, an hour before Hutchinson arrived on the scene.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Hutchinson

Thanks, Jon. You've answered that much better than I ever could. I would just add that one further reason which might account for the delay in Hutchinson's coming forward would be the thought that he could himself become suspect if, and when, he did so. If that was his thought process, subsequent events have proved him right to a degree he could never have anticipated.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

Hi Colin, thanks.

I wasn't meaning to get under your feet with that post, it was afterall directed to you.

You're right, there could have been other reason's. The Morning Advertiser suggests the reason was known by the authorities..

He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police.
Morning Advertiser, 14 Nov.

Given that it is not normally in the media's interests to act with prudence or to be discrete, we can reasonably take it that the police knew the reasons for Hutchinson not coming forward immediately, but chose not to share them with the media.
Which only invites more questions I suppose...

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Oh Lordy.

Look, Joel's observation was that Astrakhan man's dress was out of place in Dorset Street. Does anyone seriously dispute this? 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.

Why do people forsake their reason so terribly badly year after repetitive point-scoring year on this subject? Is the temptation to elevate Jack's social status above the impoverished masses really so strong?

Oh but Ben, Abberline knew the East End and didn't have a problem blah blah blah...

Well yes, actually, he did. Hutchinson's account was ultimately discredited owing to doubts about his credibility, motivation for coming forward late etc. This was revealed by the Echo, who we know for certain gained knowledge directly from police sources. Hutchinson evidently wasn't used in later eyewitness identity attempts (unlike at least one Jewish witness whose description was considerably light in detail in comparison to Hutchinson), and since Abberline's own 1903 comments effectively exclude Hutchinson as a potentially ripper-spotting witness, it is quite clear that the original "discrediting", which was also noted in the Star on 15th November, was sustained.

"Among these were Mrs Kennedy, and possibly Mrs McCarthy, Mrs Paumier and Sarah Ronay, non of whom were asked to appear at the Inquest."

Yes, Jon, and there's a very special reason for that. The accounts of these women were either exposed as, or strongly suspected to be, worthless. In Kennedy's case, she was exposed as a parrot of genuine witness Sarah Lewis. No evidence that "Mrs. Paumier" ever went near a policeman, and we only have it on her say-so that "Sarah Roney" even existed! Yes, these probable liars did allude to well-dressed men, but that's because posh rippers are so much more fun and interesting than common rippers, and are more titillating to read about in silly newspapers that hope to sell sensationalist stories to a flock that with any luck, might just swallow it whole without bothering to digest the wealth of reliable evidence from the Kelly murder. A bit like some posters to the Kelly threads.

No. We do not "know" that there were 53 people filing reports describing well-dressed man.

No. The vast majority of the newspaper-reading public were not under the impression that Kelly was killed late morning, and nor were the police. This was a minority endorsed opinion which therefore received only minority support. So no, the mysterious Sunday policeman would not have sent Hutchinson on his merry way after listening to his account, nor would he have justified his appalling failure to alert his superiors on the grounds that the late morning time of death for Kelly MIGHT be the correct one. It was not his call to make, and it would have a been a painfully silly and controversial one had he made it.

The same goes for Hutchinson himself. Had he read the newspapers and heard news of the murder via word of mouth, the overwhelming likelihood is that he would have heard about the early morning time of death, not the Maxwellian alternative. Even if he had heard the latter theory, it's impossible to accept that he'd withhold mention of the Astrakhan incident on the personal belief in a minority-endorsed later time of death.

Hutch. does tell us that someone at the Victoria Home suggested he go to the police, it wasn't on his own volition.

Yep..JUST after the inquest closed. JUST after the opportunity to be quizzed in a public arena in front of potentially incriminating fellow witnesses had passed. THAT'S when this unnamed fellow lodger decided to chime in and give Hutch the nudge in the direction of the police. Coincidence?

Hutchinson's discrediting had absolutely nothing to do with Bond's time of death, which, incidentally, was not accepted without question by the police. On the contrary, it is quite clear from other sources that the police considered the mutually corroborative evidence of Lewis and Prater to be a rough guide in that respect. The Echo makes perfectly clear the reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted", and it involved his lateness in coming forward and the inevitable impact this had on his credibility.

Wouldn't it be tedious to have to reproduce duplicate discussions from last year and earlier just because the same people keep repeating the same arguments which they know full well have been challenged extensively?

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

I expect we've been through this before, but I'm not growing any younger so perhaps you could refresh my memory?

If Hutch's motivation for coming forward was his discovery that Sarah Lewis had seen him hanging round the court shortly before he murdered Mary, and his fear that she could identify him if he didn't do it himself and offer an innocent explanation, how could he have been sure that Lewis wouldn't be able to put a spanner in the works, one way or another? For all Hutch knew, she could have been chatting to Mary somewhere all the while the latter was supposed to be on Commercial St picking up Hutch's fictional panto villain. Infinitely worse, Lewis could have been watching when Hutch the lurker became Hutch the intruder and disappeared into Mary's room. She could have known a lot more about him and his movements than the inquest let on. She could even have seen him leave again after the murder, and be able to describe him in greater detail than Lawende had.

If, by your own argument, nobody in their right mind who lived in the vicinity could have heard Hutch's description of Mr. A without laughing out loud, raising an extremely sceptical eyebrow or saying "Pull the other one", that would certainly have included Sarah Lewis, who at the very least would surely have had something to say if she had realised it was her lurking man who was spouting such eye-watering nonsense about Mary's final client.

As with the Cross theory, it beggars belief that the ripper would have allowed himself to be spooked into acting out such ridiculous and unlikely charades by the likes of Paul or Lewis.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

For all Hutch knew, she could have been chatting to Mary somewhere all the while the latter was supposed to be on Commercial St picking up Hutch's fictional panto villain. Infinitely worse, Lewis could have been watching when Hutch the lurker became Hutch the intruder and disappeared into Mary's room.

But according to the premise that Hutchinson was spurred into coming forward as a result of Sarah Lewis' evidence, he would already have known that neither of the above were true. He would have known that Lewis only registered his presence opposite the court shortly before she herself entered it, and he would have known that she didn't venture a peak out of her room #2 window when he, or whoever the killer was, entered Kelly's room. The police were very unlikely to sanction both the suppression of crucial eyewitness evidence and the swearing on oath to pre-arranged fabricated information purely in an effort to snare the offender, and unless he was completely paranoid, Hutchinson himself was unlikely to suspect such a ruse either.

It seems likely that if Hutchinson was the killer, he sought to nip in the bud what little they had in terms of eyewitness evidence by approaching the police voluntarily, as other serial killers have done, and play the cooperative witness card. Thus establishing his loitering presence as an innocent one if and when anyone bothered to notice the congruity between Lewis' loiterer and that jolly good upright citizen who also loitered at that place and that time, but only because he saw his friend return home with a dodgy-looking man. Better than being tracked down subsequently and identified as the loitering man before he had a chance to create a innocent reason for his presence there, and before he could deflect suspicion elsewhere in the form of a sinister Jewish-looking suspect.

As for what Sarah Lewis made of Hutchinson's Astrakhan story, we've no idea. She might have decided straight away that it was made of whole cloth (or American cloth!), but it's just as likely that she was swept away, along with many others, in a tide of press-fuelled suspicion that anyone capable of such atrocity must be someone who'd stand out a mile off - somebody Jewish and "surly" who exudes suspicion. It was Hutchinson's intention, in my view, to pander to precisely those fears and preconceptions when concocting Astrakhan man.

As with the Cross theory, it beggars belief that the ripper would have allowed himself to be spooked into acting out such ridiculous and unlikely charades by the likes of Paul or Lewis.

But serial killers have been known to resort to precisely these sorts of tactics, and they really aren't that bizarre when you think about it, especially given the determination of many such offenders to get one over their pursuers and thrill at being "right under their noses". It basically amounts to approaching the police voluntarily under a bogus guise, often to pre-empt suspicion, and it involves the same degree of risk as prompted them to embark on a serial spree in the first place.

Happy new year!

Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz,



But according to the premise that Hutchinson was spurred into coming forward as a result of Sarah Lewis' evidence, he would already have known that neither of the above were true. He would have known that Lewis only registered his presence opposite the court shortly before she herself entered it, and he would have known that she didn't venture a peak out of her room #2 window when he, or whoever the killer was, entered Kelly's room. The police were very unlikely to sanction both the suppression of crucial eyewitness evidence and the swearing on oath to pre-arranged fabricated information purely in an effort to snare the offender, and unless he was completely paranoid, Hutchinson himself was unlikely to suspect such a ruse either.

It seems likely that if Hutchinson was the killer, he sought to nip in the bud what little they had in terms of eyewitness evidence by approaching the police voluntarily, as other serial killers have done, and play the cooperative witness card. Thus establishing his loitering presence as an innocent one if and when anyone bothered to notice the congruity between Lewis' loiterer and that jolly good upright citizen who also loitered at that place and that time, but only because he saw his friend return home with a dodgy-looking man. Better than being tracked down subsequently and identified as the loitering man before he had a chance to create a innocent reason for his presence there, and before he could deflect suspicion elsewhere in the form of a sinister Jewish-looking suspect.

As for what Sarah Lewis made of Hutchinson's Astrakhan story, we've no idea. She might have decided straight away that it was made of whole cloth (or American cloth!), but it's just as likely that she was swept away, along with many others, in a tide of press-fuelled suspicion that anyone capable of such atrocity must be someone who'd stand out a mile off - somebody Jewish and "surly" who exudes suspicion. It was Hutchinson's intention, in my view, to pander to precisely those fears and preconceptions when concocting Astrakhan man.



But serial killers have been known to resort to precisely these sorts of tactics, and they really aren't that bizarre when you think about it, especially given the determination of many such offenders to get one over their pursuers and thrill at being "right under their noses". It basically amounts to approaching the police voluntarily under a bogus guise, often to pre-empt suspicion, and it involves the same degree of risk as prompted them to embark on a serial spree in the first place.

Happy new year!

Ben

As usual-Well said Ben

If Hutch really saw A-man, then A-man was undoubtedly the Ripper and Hutch obviously the most important witness.

What does it tell you that almost no one believes either?

[Bridewell]

Hutchinson's Credibility

Hutchinson's account was ultimately discredited owing to doubts about his credibility, motivation for coming forward late etc. This was revealed by the Echo, who we know for certain gained knowledge directly from police sources.

From police sources only or from various sources? Hutchinson must have been discredited because a newspaper said that he was? You have more faith in journalistic integrity than I do, Ben. Of course, it's entirely possible that Hutchinson was just an attention-seeker, or was prone to exaggeration but it's also possible that he was telling the truth as he remembered it.

Astrakhan Man may or may not have existed. If he existed, he may have been what he appeared to be - or a working man wearing a cheap coat trimmed with fake fur, a gilt chain, a cheap horseshoe pin and a pair of home-made spats. If you were the Ripper and possessed a modicum of nous would you go out in the clothes people might recognise you by - or would you assume the superficial appearance of being something that you're not?

I agree that Hutchinson may have been a fraud, but he may not. He certainly doesn't become discredited simply because a newspaper report, assumed to be based upon an unnamed police source, claimed that he was.

I'm open-minded about Hutchinson.

Shall we get back to eyelashes now?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

If Hutch really saw A-man, then A-man was undoubtedly the Ripper and Hutch obviously the most important witness.

Not "undoubtedly", not so long as Kelly was reported seen outside the Britannia at about 3:00 am., presumably after her liaison with Astrachan?

Anyway, this thread is about eyelashes, though I have to wonder if there is any mileage left on that subject.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

I used to lean toward Ben's notion that GH discovered he was seen loitering over the weekend, and that was the motivation for coming forward. But Ive been unable to reconcile the details of his statement or the reason for his almost certain fabrication when it comes to his trail that day and his "suspect".

I believe that its quite likely George Hutchinson came forward to insert a suspect into the investigation. Someone maybe he believed was responsible for Marys death. Maybe she really was a friend. Who knows?

His reasons for describing the man in obviously unbelievable detail would be that he wanted to be certain he used any identifiable feature of the man in case he was only wearing part of the ensemble when the police found him. Maybe the killer was known to George. Maybe he knew all the guys accessories and his usual state of dress.

By the details, the man he describes could easily be General Millen.

Cheers