Eyelashes?

[Bridewell]

A Name

Maybe the killer was known to George. Maybe he knew all the guys accessories and his usual state of dress.

Hi Michael,

So why not name him then, if he was a friend of Kelly's and wanted the killer caught?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

So why not name him then, if he was a friend of Kelly's and wanted the killer caught?

Regards, Bridewell.

And sign his own death warrant? With just a description he could claim to any aggrieved parties later that he meant someone else. I said the description does seem to match General Millen, but there were other astrakan trimmed coats in the area.

Also, I dont believe his real name was George Hutchinson anyway. Hard to find a man using an alias.

One reason I suggest this is Abberlines full support of the man after hearing the description from him. Abberline made his name knowing those streets and the Irish rebels that were on the "watch list". He may have even know of Millen and his appearance.

Maybe Abberline felt the Irish were involved in at least that murder. With Royal Irish Constabulary interest in the case, one might imagine such things.

Cheers BW

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

Hutchinson must have been discredited because a newspaper said that he was?

No, Hutchinson was discredited because we're told so by a newspaper which we know for an absolute ironclad indisputable certainty obtained their information from the police, and because another newspaper reported the same observation, and because the later interviews, reports, and memoirs of senior police officials all bear this "discrediting" out.

It was stated in the Echo that they approached Commercial Street police station in order to ascertain the truth about the origin of Hutchinson’s statement, and were informed that the "fuller" account which appeared on the 14th proceeded from the same source as the briefer description that surfaced a day earlier, and which didn't have Hutchinson's name appended to it. We know now that this is true. Some of their press contemporaries had formed the mistaken impression that they were two independently supportive accounts from two separate Astrakhan spotters, and the Echo, having approached the police to seek clarification, were assured that this was not the case. They were also informed that the statement had been “considerably discounted”.

Since the former confirmation could only have originated from the police, there can be no realistic doubt that the Echo did approach the police station, and that they were supplied with what we know for certain to be accurate information.

As for "journalistic integrity" there was no rational motive for the newspapers to invent the detail that Hutchinson was discredited. Both the Echo and the Star were originally enthusiastic in their reporting of Hutchinson's account, evidently accepting it as a valuable clue to the killer's identity. It would make no sense for them to undermine these observations just a day later and report that the account was "now discredited" unless it were true.

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?

If you were the ripper and possessed a modicum of nous, the very last thing you'd do is dress in the most conspicuous fashion imaginable, deterring your intended targets and practically guaranteeing hostile attention from criminals and ripper-chasers. If you were hoping for a disguise, you'd be going the very worst way about it. I don't understand the argument that the implausibility of the description is somehow lessened if we accept that it was working class local wearing cheap but flashy clothes and accessories. In this this scenario we have to accept that the men most likely to be streetwise, and most likely to get away with murder most foul in their nondescript clothes and "everyman" appearance, thought it a clever idea to dress in a manner that almost precisely matched the bogus "scary" descriptions of the ripper that had circulated in the press.

Now we can get back to eyelashes!

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

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.

You sound very sure about this, Ben, so let's assume you are right, and that Hutch knew Lewis couldn't have seen him doing anything incriminating. Standing opposite the court, appearing to be waiting for someone, wasn't a crime.

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.

Yes, naturally if Hutch was the killer, he must have been pretty confident that the police would buy his panto villain hook, line, sinker and eyelashes, and not think to question his own involvement any further, even if they did begin to doubt the story.

Of course, there'd have been no 'congruity' to notice between Lewis's loiterer and himself if he'd simply stayed well out of it, leaving Lewis to do her worst. And I fail to see how he could have been tracked down, let alone positively identified, using anything that Lewis had said about him at the inquest. How could she have proved he was the man she saw, beyond reasonable doubt, if he denied it? Even if he admitted to being near the court that night, so what? Scores of men could have passed the same way. Lewis, by your own insistence, couldn't put him at the murder scene, could she? He was not seen in the victim's company either.

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.

I don't think you can have it both ways, Ben. Hutch's panto villain was either too ludicrous for anyone then as now to be fooled by, or many were indeed 'swept away', even locals like Lewis, and saw nothing especially sore thumb-like about Mary's flashy customer.

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.

As I say, if Hutch was the killer, I can't see how he had anything to fear from Lewis if she could only have seen him briefly. And if he was seeking the thrill of being "right under their noses" it seems to have cost him any more thrills in the mutilation department.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As for "journalistic integrity" there was no rational motive for the newspapers to invent the detail that Hutchinson was discredited. Both the Echo and the Star were originally enthusiastic in their reporting of Hutchinson's account, evidently accepting it as a valuable clue to the killer's identity. It would make no sense for them to undermine these observations just a day later and report that the account was "now discredited" unless it were true.

Or unless they suddenly came to their senses and felt very silly indeed for having been taken in by such an obviously bogus description of anyone who ever walked along Commercial Street looking for a cheap piece of skirt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

No, Hutchinson was discredited because we're told so by a newspaper which we know for an absolute ironclad indisputable certainty obtained their information from the police, .....

And this direct quote from the police is written where?

If I was to search through news reports published by your source (which I assume is the Echo) and find any factual errors, that would blow your pretentious theorizing into next week, wouldn't it.

Go on Ben, challenge me....

They were also informed that the statement had been “considerably discounted”.

Which would certainly be the case when the top brass had been informed about Dr. Bond's estimated time of death (between 1:00-2:00 am).

While the police cannot call Hutchinson a lair (and there's no evidence to suggest they did), their hands are effectively tied by a report from a professional source, which is always the preference by the police.

Conclusion, Hutchinson's story had to be considered of less importance (discounted in value) they had to set aside the apparent importance of Hutchinson's story because the police had no basis for calling into doubt Dr. Bond's report, in favor of an unqualified citizen.

Its as simple as that.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Ben]

And this direct quote from the police is written where?

Oh, for crying out loud...

I'll explain yet again, this time for the benefit of extremely ill-formed, obstinate and aggressive types who lash out with accusations of "pretentious theorizing" despite offering very little themselves beyond an obvious, silly, annoying bias towards a "well-dressed" outsider ripper identity theory.

Now then...

Here we go again...

It was stated in the Echo (see, if you'd bothered to read my previous post, you know the source was the Echo - you wouldn't have to "assume") that they approached Commercial Street police station in order to ascertain the truth about the origin of Hutchinson’s statement, and were informed that the "fuller" account which appeared on the 14th proceeded from the same source as the briefer description that surfaced a day earlier, and which didn't have Hutchinson's name appended to it. We know now that this is true. Some of their press contemporaries had formed the mistaken impression that they were two independently supportive accounts from two separate Astrakhan spotters, and the Echo, having approached the police to seek clarification, were assured that this was not the case.

This means that the Echo definitely communicated with the police.

This also means that the Echo received information from them that was definitely correct.

And it was during this same communication that the "authorities" revealed that the account had been "considerably discounted" because its author did not attend the inquest, and only came forward three days after the murder. NOT BECAUSE OF ANY TIME OF DEATH OFFERED BY DR. BOND. Definitely and permanently not.

Stop me if any of this sounds like rocket science.

If I was to search through news reports published by your source (which I assume is the Echo) and find any factual errors, that would blow your pretentious theorizing into next week, wouldn't it.

No, it wouldn't.

We know that these particular reports, as outlined above, are 100% accurate. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the same newspaper reported the following day that Jack the Ripper was a fluffy pink hippo called Algernon. It wouldn't make a scrap of difference to the undisputed correctness of the previous day's reports.

Which would certainly be the case when the top brass had been informed about Dr. Bond's estimated time of death (between 1:00-2:00 am).

You clearly missed the bit where I demolished this nonsense, in the same way that I demolished it last year. Here it comes again: 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.

[Wickerman]

You clearly missed the bit where I demolished this nonsense, in the same way that I demolished it last year.

I do remember you taking off with your tail between your legs after you had been told in no uncertain terms, and by more than me, and for the umpteenth time, that you are totally wrong.

But here you are again with the same old tripe, with nothing more than highly emotional arguments where you insist on this, or that, with nothing to support your claims but the aggressive attitude that impresses no-one and makes no impression whatsoever.
You learn nothing, you provide nothing, in consequence you change nothing.

It is quite clear your main interest is to mindlessly argue for what you want to believe, and push your beliefs as if they are facts.

Come back when you have something meaningful to contribute.

Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

I think its erroneous to surmise that one can suss out precisely why Hutchinson is reported to have been discredited as a witness a few days after his statement, it is however just as erroneous to assume that, despite the press report, that he was not discredited.

He was. They stopped looking for Astrakan. That should be enough to set his story aside under the "Potentially Tall Tale" section of your own Ripper library.

There is in fact no witness story with claims to have seen Mary Kelly alive after 11:45 Thursday night that is supported beyond that following week. Their stories were investigated, and then set aside. Hutch, Maxwell, et al.

Cheers

[caz]

This means that the Echo definitely communicated with the police.

This also means that the Echo received information from them that was definitely correct.

And it was during this same communication that the "authorities" revealed that the account had been "considerably discounted" because its author did not attend the inquest, and only came forward three days after the murder. NOT BECAUSE OF ANY TIME OF DEATH OFFERED BY DR. BOND. Definitely and permanently not.

Stop me if any of this sounds like rocket science...

...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.

Hi Ben,

Many thanks for this. So while Abberline had no initial problems with Hutch's credibility, despite his non-attendance at the inquest and tardy appearance at the nick, the authorities definitely decided that this considerably reduced the value of his story. NOT THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ASTRAKHAN MAN, WHICH, ACCORDING TO YOU, NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SHOULD HAVE GIVEN A MOMENT'S CREDENCE. Definitely and permanently not.

Stop me if any of this doesn't follow on logically from the position you outlined very clearly above.

So - where is your evidence that Abberline or the authorities in general had credibility issues with the description itself, and would have discounted the sighting anyway for those reasons, if Hutch had come forward promptly and attended the inquest?

If we are obliged to accept the reasons given by the authorities, as reported in the press, for dropping Hutch as a credible witness, and only the reasons given (which is your position, remember), then you can't claim it was even in part due to Astrakhan Man striking bum notes.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think its erroneous to surmise that one can suss out precisely why Hutchinson is reported to have been discredited as a witness a few days after his statement, it is however just as erroneous to assume that, despite the press report, that he was not discredited.

He was. They stopped looking for Astrakan. That should be enough to set his story aside under the "Potentially Tall Tale" section of your own Ripper library.

There is in fact no witness story with claims to have seen Mary Kelly alive after 11:45 Thursday night that is supported beyond that following week. Their stories were investigated, and then set aside. Hutch, Maxwell, et al.

Cheers

Hi Mike,

I agree with you. For whatever reason, Hutch's claimed sighting led nowhere, and the police couldn't use it.

But it was initially considered potentially important, or they wouldn't have got him to take them round looking for Ben's panto villain.

I can't see why they would suddenly, after a fruitless search, conclude that Hutch's lateness in coming forward meant they should never have taken him seriously. Something else must have been said, or come to light, that made it unlikely or even impossible that Hutch had seen whoever it was who actually killed Kelly.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Standing opposite the court, appearing to be waiting for someone, wasn't a crime.

Indeed it wasn't, but Sarah Lewis noticed that the man was seemingly interested in the entrance to the same dwelling in which Kelly was shortly thereafter found murdered, making him an obvious person of interest. If that man was Hutchinson and he was hovering around, surveying the scene like many other serial killers have done since, waiting for the best opportunity to enter the building and commit the murder, a subsequent realisation on his part that the pesky Lewis woman had blabbed to the inquest about it would naturally unnerve him.

He could either lay low and hope that he isn't recognised subsequently by Lewis (who lived in relatively close proximity to the Victoria Home, unlike Lawende, Schwartz and others who might have seen him), and paraded in front of other eyewitness, or he could do what many other serialists have done since and come forward with a spurious story designed to account innocently for their presence at a crime scene and/or deflect suspicion in a false direction. I know the latter is often objected to on the grounds that the above outcome (Hutchinson being suspected and dragged before other witnesses) might have happened anyway, but that argument tends to undervalue the power of a preconception. If Hutchinson voluntarily approached the police as a witness, it is extremely unlikely that the police would suspect him of being the real killer, especially such a nascent police force with no experience of serial killer behaviour. Even reputable modern day criminologists suspect very strongly that serial killers have slipped the net as a result of coming forward as bogus witnesses or informers.

I don't think you can have it both ways, Ben. Hutch's panto villain was either too ludicrous for anyone then as now to be fooled by, or many were indeed 'swept away', even locals like Lewis, and saw nothing especially sore thumb-like about Mary's flashy customer

I meant that in being "swept away", they may well have been prepared to accept scenarios that under "normal" circumstances would be considered highly improbable and outlandish. If Jack the Ripper was this mad, evil, out-of-the-ordinary individual to their minds, he'd probably have an appearance to go with it. Remember that Hutchinson's description wasn't the only bogus description that was initially bought into. Even today you get the odd attempt to revive Stephen White's alleged suspect, with his "luminous glow worm eyes" and "long tapering fingers"!

And if he was seeking the thrill of being "right under their noses" it seems to have cost him any more thrills in the mutilation department.

It would have accounted for a delay or a cessation, yes, depending on whether or not Kelly was the last victim. A break in a serial is often explained by the offender coming into contact with the police in some capacity. It might be remembered that Alice McKenzie was murdered a year later just a few feet away from the Victoria Home.

All the best,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

I agree with you. For whatever reason, Hutch's claimed sighting led nowhere, and the police couldn't use it.

But it was initially considered potentially important, or they wouldn't have got him to take them round looking for Ben's panto villain.

I can't see why they would suddenly, after a fruitless search, conclude that Hutch's lateness in coming forward meant they should never have taken him seriously. Something else must have been said, or come to light, that made it unlikely or even impossible that Hutch had seen whoever it was who actually killed Kelly.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I share the sceptism, and Im not going to make an argument for Bens opinion on why they did discredit his tale,..my own opinion is that their investigation of him, which must have taken place, not his absence until Monday night, was the reason they changed their mandate.

They did take him seriously at first. Even with what we all feel is an embellished story. The Blotchy suspect got away a few days later when spotted because the policeman told the witness that they were looking for a very different type of character. Its obvious that Hutch has a negative impact on the overall investigation.

My guess is that the description matched someone known by Abberline, and that was the intention. Thats why he jumped on the story. Im not sure Hutch actually knew Mary at all.

A friend, like he says he was, would not wait 4 days to come forward with what, if true, is the single most important clue to the murderer.

Cheers Caz, best regards.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Many thanks for this. So while Abberline had no initial problems with Hutch's credibility, despite his non-attendance at the inquest and tardy appearance at the nick, the authorities definitely decided that this considerably reduced the value of his story. NOT THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ASTRAKHAN MAN, WHICH, ACCORDING TO YOU, NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SHOULD HAVE GIVEN A MOMENT'S CREDENCE. Definitely and permanently not.

Actually, it appears the latter played a part in the discrediting too. It may be worth producing the first Echo extract in its entirety.

"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance."

Note that 53 statements as to "suspicious men" were made, not "well-dressed men", as Jon claimed earlier.

The above was from the 13th, and the same newspaper reported the following day:

'What is said to be a full and accurate description of the man last seen with Kelly is asserted to be in the possession of the authorities. That description was given them the other night by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a labourer. The importance of that description lies (so say the morning papers) in the fact that it agrees with that furnished to the police yesterday, but which was considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner. There is not, so it is declared (i.e. by rival morning papers), the slightest reason for doubting Hutchinson's veracity.

...Unfortunately for the theories of our morning contemporaries, we learned on inquiry at the Commercial-street Police Station today that the elaborate description given above is virtually the same as previously published. It is a little fuller, that is all. But it proceeds from the same source...'

It appears that the description did play a part in this "reduced importance", and the implausibility of the description was noted at the time in other papers, such as the Graphic on 17th November:

"The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as "a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots," and "a red stone hanging from his watch-chain," must possess the eyes of a born detective."

I can't see why they would suddenly, after a fruitless search, conclude that Hutch's lateness in coming forward meant they should never have taken him seriously. Something else must have been said, or come to light, that made it unlikely or even impossible that Hutch had seen whoever it was who actually killed Kelly

He might have given himself away with his press disclosures which contained numerous embellishments and contradictions to his original statement. It would have taken no time at all, for instance, to ascertain that his claim to have encountered a policeman on the Sunday was a fabrication.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I do remember you taking off with your tail between your legs after you had been told in no uncertain terms, and by more than me, and for the umpteenth time, that you are totally wrong.

If you "remember" this so well, please direct me to where I supposedly left a thread because more than one person was telling me in "no uncertain terms" that Hutchinson was discredited because Dr. Bond thought Kelly was killed between 1.00am and 2.00am. Because I've got to say, it's not ringing any bells at the moment, and I'm also pretty certain that it's only ever been you espousing that very bizarre notion involving Bond.

with nothing to support your claims but the aggressive attitude that impresses no-one and makes no impression whatsoever

That's my self esteem in tatters, especially because you clearly speak for everyone (?).

"Come back when you have something meaningful to contribute".

You mean like provably false claims from the Daily News? Or "Mrs. Kennedy"? Really meaningful stuff there.