Jack The Ripper solved?

[Wickerman]

Well, it's not exactly unsubstantiated speculation when discussing the possibility that Hutch lied. There are facts that support this possibility, as reported in the press and in the fact that Hutch relatively quickly ceased being considered an important witness. But then I wonder 'Was this due to his reliability being called into question or because many policeman doubted he saw the actual murderer because of the time at which his encounter occurred?'

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The press only provide opinion Tom, not facts.

Couple this with the fact that Dr Bond offered as his professional opinion the likelyhood that Kelly died around 1:00-2:00 am, and that is all you need for Abberline & Co. to reconsider the story given by Hutchinson.
However, as the police were still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect weeks after the murder then we can safely presume that interest had not abated as suddenly as some would have 'you' believe.

Recall the concern Swanson voiced when the statement given by Richardson directly contested the professional opinion of Dr Phillips?
This is because the police are very much inclined to use professional opinion as their guide in preference to the statement of a layperson.

The police were once again in confusion between Bond & Hutchinson as they were between Richardson & Phillips.
On the one hand the police were well aware that the opinion of a medical professional is not always the last word, yet they also knew who's opinion would carry the most weight from a legal perspective.
The best course of action for Scotland Yard is to pursue both lines of enquiry, which is what they did.
Subsequently, the police backed down from the Hutchinson suspect as being of prime interest and pursued the Blotchy suspect equally.

Naturally, with the press not being privy to these internal decisions they assumed something was amiss with one of the witnesses. As a result we have the press speculating as to what they perceive as a change of direction, and as usual with the press their speculation was wrong.
Do not forget, the press were not aware of the contents of the report given by Bond to the Home Office, though they did understand the report was created with the collaboration of Dr Phillips.

The mistake made by Scotland Yard was not to take the press into their confidence, as is done today, and use their power of communication to expand the investigation.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Tom,
By the end part of that weekend, it appears the police believed that the murder happened in daylight, conceivably because of the alleged morning sightings.
This was reported in The Times Nov 12.
That being the case, even though they initially believed Hutchinson, they may have still formed the opinion that the man he described was not likely to have been her killer, as Mrs Maxwell swore on oath,she was alive some 6 hours after Hutchinson's sighting.
I would suggest, that the police simply let his statement take less preference , after a couple of days of not producing the goods.
I find the police initially view of a daylight murder quite significant..
Regards Richard.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, it's not exactly unsubstantiated speculation when discussing the possibility that Hutch lied. There are facts that support this possibility, as reported in the press and in the fact that Hutch relatively quickly ceased being considered an important witness. But then I wonder 'Was this due to his reliability being called into question or because many policeman doubted he saw the actual murderer because of the time at which his encounter occurred?'

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick. You are very possibly correct. I'm extremely open-minded about all of this stuff. If you're reading my posts on Hutch you'll notice I start them by saying 'if he wasn't telling the truth'. If he was telling the truth, then his story is absolute and there's not much else to discuss, except the possible identity of A-Man.

Hi Tom.
We are at an extreme disadvantage when compared with Abberline. All we are able to do is judge Hutchinson on a few written sentences, whereas Abberline met him and sat with him. It is a shame no written report of the interrogation has survived, much of the speculation about him today would be clarified in that report.

But what if he wasn't telling the truth? And why the hell was he hanging around the court at that time? Hutch remains an enigma. I'd like to know more about him, and frankly, I'm not certain his name was George Hutchinson.

Speculating that he may have been untruthful is only natural, we can never be as sure as Abberline. Though equally, we are not able to cast judgement on Hutchinson based on our assumption that he may have lied about something. First such accusations need to be established.

And that is where the hypothesis fails at the first hurdle.

The safest and most reliable position to take is the one that is consistent with Abberline's view.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. You are very possibly correct. I'm extremely open-minded about all of this stuff. If you're reading my posts on Hutch you'll notice I start them by saying 'if he wasn't telling the truth'. If he was telling the truth, then his story is absolute and there's not much else to discuss, except the possible identity of A-Man.

But what if he wasn't telling the truth? And why the hell was he hanging around the court at that time? Hutch remains an enigma. I'd like to know more about him, and frankly, I'm not certain his name was George Hutchinson.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

We obviously must not lose sight of the possibility that Mr A did exist , and our George was ''Honest George''.
Regards Richard.

And that the most likely candidate is a local small time thief and confidence trickster named Joseph Isaac's,
- who was a middle-aged Jew with a moustache.
- who did live down a court off Dorset St. so had every reason to be there at that time.
- And was seen wearing an Astrachan coat
- and known to wear an imitation gold watch chain - with no watch.

We can never be sure of course, but there is no better candidate.

[Wickerman]

The most forced detail in Hutch's testimony, to my mind, isn't the description of the man, it's the addition of the red handkerchief. That's in the story for only one of two reasons:

In the period Tom a man would wear a folded handkerchief in his top breast pocket, the handkerchief being visible as was the fashion.
This would be visible as the stranger walked towards Hutchinson as he passed under the lamp.

[Wickerman]

A well-dressed man was spotted around Millers Court prior to Hutchinson coming forward. That's in the papers. This could have been what informed Hutch's story. You don't go forward with a fake story without at least trying to make it appear legitimate. And how do you do that? You read the papers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ah Tom, you are smarter than that.

- To start with, you already know that the descriptions of these two men differ. Whereas it is in Hutchinson's interests to make sure they are the same.
Also the man Hutchinson saw came from a different direction.
It is quite apparent that Hutchinson is describing a different man.
But you know this

[The Good Michael]

1) He was attempting to protect himself because he feared he'd be identified, although his presence in Millers Court was innocent.

2) Ditto, except his presence wasn't innocent. He was the killer.

3) Ditto, except he was the accomplice.

4) He was paid or compelled to offer his story to protect someone else who was the killer.

5) He was an attention/money seeker.

6. The story was for the most part true and he was seeking money

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
Some great recent posts.
The only reasons Hutchinson would incorporate the handkerchief into his tale, would be an attempt to spice up his story , and make it more convincing, or to give a good reason for that item to be found in Kelly's room.
I used to believe that the Handkerchief belonged to Hutchinson, and Mr A was a invention of himself, and that scenario still is possible.
If G H owned a distinctive red handkerchief, and was a dapper sort, that used to always display one, and he left it in Kelly's room, he may have become paranoid that it could lead to someone putting two and two together, especially if he was known to have been a friend of the dead woman, and had no alibi for the night in question.
He may have been seen with Kelly that morning, and again became paranoid that the Handkerchief might lead to questions being asked , and his missing hankie might become relevant, and lead to him becoming a suspect.
All this is pure speculation[ what's new?]
We know that Topping [ if G H] was the type that may have been that Dapper Dan type, his love of music halls, and his dress attire , which included a cane, may give a suggestion that a silk handkerchief would not have been alien to his personality .
But we are left with the obvious question.
If Hutchinson was in Mary's room around 2,30am , was it in a capacity to doss down until his lodging became available , or was it in for murderous reasons.?
I would suggest it was the former.
The whole crux of the matter is If Hutchinson lied to the police because of being afraid, because he could hardly admit to being in room 13 until around 6am, when medical reports suggest MJK was dead, then it would suggest quite firmly that Mary Kelly met her end much later, and that the morning sightings are believable ..
We obviously must not lose sight of the possibility that Mr A did exist , and our George was ''Honest George''.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Interestingly, though unsurprisingly (and, in my view, wrongly), the police ultimately favoured option #5.

Cheers,
Ben

Yes, and that´s borne out by the fact that Dew stated that he would not reflect upon Hutchinson´s honesty, just as it is fortified by the fact that the papers reported on how the Hutchinson trail was followed up on even after his story had been revealed to be of less interest than what was originally the case.

The police never said a word about any dishonesty on behalf of Hutchinson. Not one single word. The term attention seeker was never offered by the police on behalf of Hutch. All the descriptions we have of him, courtesy of the police, are either favourable or neutral descriptions. Not one single phrase is negative.

His story did not pan out, we can see that. But such a thing can owe to a number of reasons, attention seeking being only one of them. An honest mistake is another viable explanation, and - oddly - an explanation that sits a lot better with Dew´s comments and the articles revealing that the police followed up on the Hutchinson lead after they had realized that it was not all it seemed to be.

The attention seeker suggestion does not fit with these known facts. So if we want to favour it, we must quite simply look away from the facts, and settle for claiming conjecture as being - the way you consistently do - "almost certainly" true.
And then you can move on to raving on about how people like me really ought not annoy you, and claim that you certainly try to avoid Hutchinson discussions, in the same breath assuring us that you will argue your case til the cows come home just the same.

It holds up very poorly, and the sooner you realise that, the better.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

It's very difficult to find fault with your above logic, Tom, and for the reasons you mention I'm just as surprised as you are that options #1 and #5 are as popular - or, perhaps more accurately, not unpopular - as they seem to be as suggested explanations for Hutchinson's behaviour. The other three do indeed work more convincingly, although I'd argue that the least likely explanation of all is that he told the squeaky-clean truth.

Interestingly, though unsurprisingly (and, in my view, wrongly), the police ultimately favoured option #5.

Cheers,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

My initial thought about the red handkerchief detail was that Hutchinson was attempting to establish a false connection with Lawende's red neckerchief man from Church Passage, and thus lend gravitas to his own "red" herring, but your option 2) makes considerable sense and interests me a lot. It could well have been that Hutchinson knew that a red rag would be found in the room (his own?), and conjured up an "innocent" explanation that accounted for its presence there.

All the best,
Ben

IF Hutch was telling a lie, the red handkerchief must have been in Kelly's possession. Or at least Hutch thought it was. If he wanted his suspect to look like Lawende's, he would have described him as such. He wouldn't turn a scarf or neckerchief into a handkerchief.

While I'm not nearly as convinced as you are that Hutch was lying, I most definitely entertain that possibility. If he was lying, there can only be so many motives to do so:

1) He was attempting to protect himself because he feared he'd be identified, although his presence in Millers Court was innocent.

2) Ditto, except his presence wasn't innocent. He was the killer.

3) Ditto, except he was the accomplice.

4) He was paid or compelled to offer his story to protect someone else who was the killer.

5) He was an attention/money seeker.

Personally, I'm inclined to strike number 5 from the list immediately. Only an absolute fool would potentially implicate themselves in the off chance they might make a little scratch. It's not like people of Hutch's class had a lot of faith in authority.

#1 has also never made a lot of sense to me, although it's the one most often suggested. If his fear was being identified as the man hanging out in Miller's Court, then why the hell would he present himself as that man and offer a fake story?

No, it's either 2, 3, 4, or the whole story was true.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

My initial thought about the red handkerchief detail was that Hutchinson was attempting to establish a false connection with Lawende's red neckerchief man from Church Passage, and thus lend gravitas to his own "red" herring, but your option 2) makes considerable sense and interests me a lot. It could well have been that Hutchinson knew that a red rag would be found in the room (his own?), and conjured up an "innocent" explanation that accounted for its presence there.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

The most forced detail in Hutch's testimony, to my mind, isn't the description of the man, it's the addition of the red handkerchief. That's in the story for only one of two reasons:

1) It really happened.

2) Hutch knew for a fact there was a red handkerchief in Kelly's pocket, knew police would find it, and would believe both his story AND that man befitting the handkerchief had been with Kelly.

In short, IF Hutch made up his story, he did not make up a detail such as the handkerchief without knowledge of its existence. So, how did he know it existed and where did Kelly get it from?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott