Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[harry]

Cox's testimomy,as described by Ben in an earlier post,is that she (Cox) followed the couple into Dorset Street,and had just turned into the court as Kelly was entering her room.So Cox was still some yards behind.As Kelly w as showing signs of intoxication,I would surmise her rate of progress as less than that of Cox,so the distance Cox was to the rear on first sighting Kelly and companion,and that is not given,could have been significant,given the conditions and poor lighting.in coming to any conclusionas as to the ability to observe features.Cox makes no mention of any contact or verbal e xchanges untill she passed the room,Ke lly was then in the process of closing the door,so unless the companion was shut out,and we know this to be not so,he was inside in a dark room ,out of view.Cox gives a description,but there is no indication of how she obtained such.So all I say,is beware of her evidence.as to details.That she saw a man with Kelly,is acceptable.That he entered her room,is conjecture,but still acceptable.That he had red hair and a blotchy face is not.

[DVV]

Hi Richard, problem is that, in your theory, the statement has to be part of the ploy. And this is unbelievable.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Lets make this point.
Correct me if I am wrong , but Hutchinson reported to the police on the eve of the 12TH at 6pm, and proceeded to inform them of vital information,
One would assume, unless the investigating officers were void of any common sense, that Hutchinson would have been told to keep his mouth shut, especially with the press, as it would be vital to aid their enquiries for the media to be non informed .
It would be absolutely vital to not spook the killer.
Questions.
Why did George Hutchinson speak to the press?
Was that a ploy on the part of the police?
Was Hutchinson assisting them in relaying a false Identification, and movements, to give the killer confidence that they had the wrong person.
Was the apparent dismissal of Hutchinson as a star witness, another ploy , to give this witness non credibility, when he was still assisting the police.
If Reg Hutchinson's tale of his father was true, if Topping was the witness, and the payment made to him was authentic[ also relayed in the Wheeling register] the sum of one hundred shillings, then I would suggest that a couple of walkabouts with police officers, would not have warranted such a lavish sum.
But what if he had assisted the police far more then assumed?
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Hi Jen

Find me a decent modern researcher who would accept Jack as anything other than a nondescript local male who blended in with his surroundings...

Jon cannot find any, of course. More importantly, he would face the same trouble finding a contemporary police official that ever came to the conclusion that JtR might have been Astrakhan Man - while the rather insignificant Blotchy was still suspected by some. Abberline himself had an affair with Mrs Long behind Hutch's back.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

The statement is all about what Hutchinson saw that night, from begining to end. Not where he was before, nor where he went after. Certainly not an unsure sighting on Sunday.
Regards, Jon S.

Sorry, but you are missing the point again. Purposely or not, I don't know.

We were talking of Abberline report, which is all about identification, and in which, obviously and logically, the Sunday sighting should have been mentioned.
The statement is just an "additional" evidence here although one can speculate that, if Hutch had told Badham about the Sunday encounter, it would have also been mentioned in the statement. Given the importance of the case, Badham could not pass over this in silence, that would have been professional misconduct.

Anyway, since it is not mentioned by Abberline, you can be sure Hutch did not mention it at all, neither to Badham nor Abberline.

He just told the press later on, for whatever reason.

[Wickerman]

This post has nothing to do with my comment, Jon.

You said they might have talked of the Sunday sighting, but that Abberline didn't bother mention it in his report, which I found completely unlikely, since Abberline report is precisely all about identification. Pretty clear.

The statement is all about what Hutchinson saw that night, from begining to end. Not where he was before, nor where he went after. Certainly not an unsure sighting on Sunday. You do recall he did say he was not sure. Abberline is only concerned with what a witness is sure about.

And report aside, the Sunday sighting should have been mentioned in the statement already. Fact is that it only appears in the press, later on.

Walking around all night, and not being able to enter the Victoria Home is also not part of the police statement, and only appears in the press. Yet both points are used against him in constructing this 'liar' hypothesis.

If it suits 'the purpose' press stories are accepted, if something appears in the press which contests 'the purpose', it is rejected.
What do you think Hutchinson had to gain by suggesting he saw this character on Sunday morning? - that needs considering.

Once again, it's well and good to argue against Hutch-the-Ripper, but believing anything he said is sheer and biased credulity. The Sunday sighting is a joke, and to begin with, Hutch should have never talked to the press at the moment he did. It might have something to do with his subsequent discredit, by the way.

The alternative is to believe the police were naive beyond belief.
Lewis describes a man loitering opposite the court just before her murder and Hutch comes forward to admit it was him, ....and they treat him as a star witness?
In such circumstances what Hutch claimed to do and where he went after 3:00 am is of prime importance, yet nothing of that nature appears in his statement, why?

They had to have a good reason not to throw him in the slammer. If Hutch truely was JtR, he would leave the area and lay low like he did every other time. The police had the best description yet of JtR (by Lawende), so coming forward (if Hutch looked like Lawende's suspect) was unbelievably stupid, and that means the police not to recognise him also had to be unbelievably stupid.
The scenario just does not hold water.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Find me a decent modern researcher who would accept Jack as anything other than a nondescript local male who blended in with his surroundings...

I don't see any suggestion to the contrary. Certainly he was local, and certainly he blended in, but that still leaves a list as long as your arm.

Clearly, Hutchinson is discredited by modern thinkers.

That does not mean they are correct.

A number of modern thinkers could not find fault with the 'Diary', a good number believed, and still believe, that Barnett was her killer. Modern thinkers fluctuate on whether Stride was a Ripper victim or not.
What the 'crowd' think is only the flavour of the moment, it is by no means an indicator of right & wrong.

Why is it so difficult to believe the contemporary Police had the same amount of intelligence to figure out a liar as we do?

We have no paperwork from the police which calls Hutchinson a liar. Why do you think they did, because some modern theorists claim he was?
When there is a book to defend, there is also a reputation at stake.

The only thing they did not have the benefit of was a hundred or so years of criminal research to show them the patterns of behaviour of some serial killers. Maybe if they had, they may have connected the dots from liar to suspect.

Equally, we do not have the benefit of all the contemporary police paperwork, files, interviews, and suspect records.
We only "think" we know, the police actually did know. The trouble is, we do not know what they knew.

Ask yourself this, if Hutchinson had described a local scruff, would there be so much opposition against him?

As I pointed out earlier, Hutchinson may not have seen the killer at all. There was still an hour to account for after Hutch left Millers Court.
Anyone could have stepped in, even Fleming...

Regards, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

the proof of the pudding is in the eating...

Find me a decent modern researcher who would accept Jack as anything other than a nondescript local male who blended in with his surroundings...

Clearly, Hutchinson is discredited by modern thinkers.

Why is it so difficult to believe the contemporary Police had the same amount of intelligence to figure out a liar as we do?

The only thing they did not have the benefit of was a hundred or so years of criminal research to show them the patterns of behaviour of some serial killers. Maybe if they had, they may have connected the dots from liar to suspect.

yes, it's very hard to dismiss him as JTR......if he's innocent, then he definitely saw JTR or an earlier client, because the least likely of all is that he wasn't there!

4 years ago it was 50:50, but it now looks like he's JTR.

[lynn cates]

positively indecent

Hello Baby Bird. In which case I must be an INDECENT researcher.

Cheers.
LC

[babybird67]

for me...

the proof of the pudding is in the eating...

Find me a decent modern researcher who would accept Jack as anything other than a nondescript local male who blended in with his surroundings...

Clearly, Hutchinson is discredited by modern thinkers.

Why is it so difficult to believe the contemporary Police had the same amount of intelligence to figure out a liar as we do?

The only thing they did not have the benefit of was a hundred or so years of criminal research to show them the patterns of behaviour of some serial killers. Maybe if they had, they may have connected the dots from liar to suspect.

[Malcolm X]

Blotchy looked strait at her and gave her a filthy look, well; according to the gutter press that is !

no idea which date.... but i expect Wickerman does, it's on the same page beside the headline that sais, ``B52 Bomber found on the moon``

[DVV]

Cox certainly saw Blotchy as she said good night to Mary. Mary and Blotchy were walking in front of Cox in the street, but that doesn't mean the man kept standing with his back to Cox when they were in the court.
Had he done so, he would make a better suspect, and we would call him anything but Blotchy.

[Garry Wroe]

… yet the description of the person seen with Kelly about midnight, prevails, when a close study of Cox's testimony reveals she had only a rear view from a distance, in poor lighting, in inclement weather.

The paradox, though, Harry, is that Mrs Cox was able to describe this man’s whiskers and complexion. Thus, unless she fabricated this element of her narrative, she must have seen his face.

[Garry Wroe]

Mister Astrakhan was certainly fiction, but who was his creator?

Well, Simon, possibly not a man named George Hutchinson if the inconsistency of his police statement signatures is duly considered.

Probably not an attention-seeker given that he would have attracted a great deal more attention had he come forward prior to the inquest.

Certainly a man whose story came to be disbelieved by investigators.

Almost certainly the man who was seen behaving oddly close to a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder.

Beyond this, your guess is as good as mine.

[DVV]

You're not thinking this through Dave.
They have a very complete description, yes?, do you think for one minute that the police are not capable of finding a man in a coat trimmed with Astrachan?
Why do they need Hutchinson?

The reason they need Hutchinson, especially at this time of night, is because Abberline knows this is not evening wear. Abberline is not prepared to wait for the next Sunday market, he needs Hutchinson for facial recognition.

They are about to hit the streets looking for a man, aged 34-35, 5ft 6in, pale complexion, dark hair & moustache, slightly curled, of which there must be dozens of them.
In order to not arrest the wrong man they need Hutchinson for facial recognition.

Savy?, comprende? verstehen Sie?
Regards, Jon S.

This post has nothing to do with my comment, Jon.

You said they might have talked of the Sunday sighting, but that Abberline didn't bother mention it in his report, which I found completely unlikely, since Abberline report is precisely all about identification. Pretty clear.

And report aside, the Sunday sighting should have been mentioned in the statement already. Fact is that it only appears in the press, later on.

If you can't accept a simple and obvious point like that, well, there is no need to respond to your posts anymore on this thread.
But I'm sure you can.

Once again, it's well and good to argue against Hutch-the-Ripper, but believing anything he said is sheer and biased credulity. The Sunday sighting is a joke, and to begin with, Hutch should have never talked to the press at the moment he did. It might have something to do with his subsequent discredit, by the way.