Jack The Ripper solved?

[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

[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

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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.

[Ben]

- 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.

I appreciate that the above was addressed to Tom, but I just have to wonder what on earth you're on about here. Tom correctly observed that there were other "well-dressed" men alleged to have been seen out and about on the night of the Kelly murder, and that Hutchinson might have got his inspiration from one of these stories. I agreed, and pointed out one such account (a patently bogus one) of a "respectably dressed" man seen with Kelly, which was suspiciously similar to Hutchinson's narrative.

No further detail was provided on the "respectably dressed" man's appearance, so we simply can't know if it "differed" from Astrakhan's, and nor can we say in which "direction" the first man was originally headed.

This would be visible as the stranger walked towards Hutchinson as he passed under the lamp.

No, it wouldn't.

It would be completely concealed by two overcoats. If you think it was the fashion to wear hankies in topcoat pockets, you'll need to research Victorian men's fashion properly and thus be disabused of that idea.

And no, Jon...

Joseph Isaacs is not just a shockingly bad candidate for Astrakhan man, he's literally impossible.

He was in prison at the time of the murder, giving him an alibi.

He was a homeless thief at the time, making it next to impossible that he could have procured even faux accessories and Astrakhan clothing.

The police released him as absolved of all suspicion, which they would not have done if they thought he was Astrakhan man. The latter couldn't possibly provide an alibi given his alleged presence in the room at 3.00am, and so couldn't possibly be absolved of all suspicion, and yet Isaacs was. Please just think about it...

No evidence that he wore a moustache (big whoop if he did, so did most men).

No evidence that he wore an Astrakhan coat.

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.

So we have to prove our speculations correct before we can speculate?

Like Fagin, I think you'd better think it out again...

[Ben]

Ah, but here things get tedious.

The moment a brand new avenue of interest is explored – in this case in the form of Tom’s interesting thoughts on the handkerchief – the thread becomes instantly polluted with the arrival of the usual suspects repeating the same old nonsense and the same personal attacks. Oh well, a rousing and repetitive Hutchinson debate we find ourselves in then. You’ll forgive me if I end up copy and pasting chunks from previous debates. I’m afraid I don’t have the time to deal with all this nonsense again using different words, especially when the last ones worked perfectly well.

Hutchinson was discredited very shortly after his first appearance at Commercial Street police station – a few days, tops – and the reason for this is very simple: the police ultimately doubted his credibility. This is proven by a known communication that existed between the police and the Echo newspaper, which puts the matter beyond rational doubt.

“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.”

This newspaper, which made direct enquiries at Commercial Street police station, also reported the very next day that Hutchinson's evidence had been:

"considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more offical manner"

Should the usuals respond with “Oh, but this is only a press report”, or otherwise claim that the Echo journalists were lying about their communication with the police, I look forward explaining in detail, for the trillionth time, why this was not the case. Alternatively, they can avoid wasting their own time by boning up a bit more on the evidence, as well as reading through some of the 11,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum. A keyword search for Echo will assist matters, I’m sure. These are clear and unambiguous reports. They tell us that Hutchinson's statement had been "discounted", and they tell us why the AUTHORITIES discounted it. Contrary to Jon's utterly false claim, they were not "speculating". They didn't need to. They didn't "assume" that "something was amiss with the witness". They were informed by the police that something was.

This perfectly explains his swift disappearance from the press, as well as his conspicuous absence from any senior police interview, report or memoir that surfaced in the years after the murders. This means we can dispense with any of the other far-fetched explanations occasionally touted for his sudden disappearance from the record.

The Dew Spew, for instance – which argues for Hutchinson being “honestly mistaken” - was wholly contradicted by the known, proven reason for his discrediting (i.e. doubts about his credibility and late, post-inquest presentation of his evidence). Moreover, it was purely Dew’s own speculations, written in 1938, and definitely not based on official police opinion at the time. These speculations have been known about for many decades since the publication of “I Caught Crippen”, and yet no-one sought to revive his stance on Hutchinson as the likely one until Fisherman piped up in an article a few years ago, and evidently convinced himself he was presenting something brand new! Ironically, he wrote the article just a month or two after cautioning me not to listen to Dew whose book, he told me, got things “terribly wrong”, and was “riddled with mistakes”.

Then there is the marginally less bad but still wrong theory that Hutchinson’s evidence got a “back seat” because the police preferred other witnesses, like Caroline Maxwell. Besides being provably wrong, there is no logic whatsoever in completely dismissing one witness in favour of another. Even if they did like Maxwell better and went, accordingly, with a time of death later in the morning, it hardly exonerates Astrakhan from suspicion – that is, if they still thought Astrakhan was real (and apparently they didn’t). We can also dispense with the oft-repeated and very sill idea that the police dismissed any evidence that did not accord with Bond’s suggested time of death. According to at least one report, it was the opinion of the police that the evidence from the inquest was sufficient to infer a later time of death than that proffered by Dr. Bond. In other words, they didn’t go with Bond’s suggested time of death, which, contrary to Jon’s erroneous claim, was not supported by Phillips either.

And no, there is absolutely no evidence at all that the police were still hunting Astrakhan man a week after Hutchinson gave his statement.

Finally, if we’re really stuck in the dark ages of “ripperology”, we can do a Wickerman and claim that Abberline’s initial “opinion that his statement is true”, offered before any investigation of Hutchinson’s claims could realistically have occurred, represents the final word on the matter. This involves sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring everything that happened afterwards, as well as perpetuating the fallacy that one is always capable of judging from body language whether someone is lying or not. David Canter pisses on that bonfire, thankfully. In a recent documentary entitled “Crocodile Tears”, which explored cases of killers “helping the investigation” by going on organized search parties with police and giving tearful interviews to camera, Canter said it was nonsense to argue that body language and presentation can tell a liar from a honest person. The best way to ascertain this, he argues, is by listening to what they actually say – the content rather than the presentation, in other words. Since we have this at our disposal, we’re at no disadvantage when compared to Abberline.

“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.”

I’m not sure who nicked the jam out of your doughnut, Fisherman, but you ought you chill out a bit. I never said a bad word to you on this thread (or any word at all for that matter!), and already you accuse me of “raving on” at you. You’re a fine one to chastise me for “arguing my case til the cows come home”. Have you not noticed the criticism you’ve received – extensive and frequent criticism - for trying to turn every thread into a Cross-the-ripper discussion?

Yes, I do try to avoid Hutchinson discussions – at least those that are repetitive and cover age-old ground, but they happen anyway. I had only to breathe a word about top-hats (before encouraging a swift return to topic) and we’re suddenly in a full-blown Hutchinson/discredited debate that’ll probably continue for a many more pages. I predicted that, 100%. There are two possible reasons for this, (a) I’m so gorgeously provocative and interesting and people like following me around, or (b) there is plenty of mileage left in Hutchinson as a person of interest. I’ve never started a Hutchinson thread in my life, but if I were to do so, I’d generate a huge amount of posts. Whereas if you tried the same thing with Cross, you’d get none of that, except perhaps another plea to stop. I'm sure that's no reflection on you, either.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben,

I largely agree with the points you've made, but I must say it's difficult for the rest of us to enjoy a discussion on Kelly or Hutch when the primary posters are:

1) Someone convinced that Astrakhan Man was Isaacs.
2) Someone convinced the Ripper was Charles Cross.
3) Someone convinced the Ripper was Hutchinson.

All discussions are fueled from these perspectives and will naturally result in much disagreement. This creates a lose/lose situation for the rest of us, because anything we post is bound to offend one of the three parties, leaving us to explain ourselves and/or defend a statement that we really don't see a necessity to defend.

But I'm not casting stones. I imagine it's no walk in the park for someone to post in a Stride thread when I'm active. Just pointing out why I'm so seldom looking at Kelly/Hutch threads. They're just accessible for 90% of us.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

For the record, of the three 'convictions' I listed in my previous post, I consider the first one to be the least likely. Sorry, Wick. It was a great idea and you've presented it with vigor, but for the life of me I can't see how you managed to convince yourself by it.

As for the other two, I consider Hutch much more suspicious than Cross, but I don't feel it any more likely that Hutch was a lone serial killer than Cross was. But he's far more likely to be associated either with the murderer or someone close to the murderer than Cross. In other words, I don't look at the evidence as black/white, or Ripper/Not Ripper. I'm surprised Hutch isn't assessed from other perspectives and not just Ripper/Not Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

I'm surprised Hutch isn't assessed from other perspectives and not just Ripper/Not Ripper.

Me too, Tom.

Which is why I was genuinely interested and persuaded by your thoughts on the handkerchief, and was enjoying discussing something entirely new to me until Fisherman and Jon turned up and, in my view, spoilt it. Their arrival signaled the burial of new ideas and the descent into yet another generic, repetitive "Did Hutchinson lie?" thread, which I then feel obliged to respond to with an equal amount of repetition. I can see how that might alienate people, so apologies for that.

As you made it perfectly clear that you were exploring a a particular scenario that might have occurred IF Hutchinson lied, there shouldn't be any need for others to start a "liar or not" fight.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Well, Ben, I think you are right when you say that much of this stuff is repetition.
Then again, repetition is called for when somebody persists to conjure up things that were never in existance.

But why donīt I show you exactly what I mean by using your very own quotations and highlightings!

Hereīs the exact passage, quoted from your own post:

"Hutchinson was discredited very shortly after his first appearance at Commercial Street police station – a few days, tops – and the reason for this is very simple: the police ultimately doubted his credibility. This is proven by a known communication that existed between the police and the Echo newspaper, which puts the matter beyond rational doubt.

“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.”

This newspaper, which made direct enquiries at Commercial Street police station, also reported the very next day that Hutchinson's evidence had been:

"considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest in a more offical manner"

Now, why you would take the time and effort to post this if your wish was to counter what I posted, is something that is rather dificult to understand. For the last decade or so, on these boards, I have never stated that a reduced importance was NOT attached to Hutchinsons statement, courtesy of investigations made. Have I?
On, the contrary, I have always said that this was the exact case: they investigated the matter, and then they decided that a recuced importance needed to be awarded his story.

We agree, therefore, on this bit. What we donīt agree on, is what caused the reduced importance.
You say that Hutchinson himself was discredited and looked upon as a timewaster or attention-seeker by the police. But you have no evidence to back that up.
I say that HIS STORY was what was discredited - and that such a thing need not reflect poorly on the man himself.
Interestingly, this is EXACTLY what Dew coroborates by saying the exact same thing - he would NOT reflect poorly on Hutchinson. Of course, you tediously and totally predictably bring up the fact that I have pointed out that there are mistakes in Dewīs book. That, however, does not make ME the better and more reliable source on matters 1888, does it? Nope, Dew was there, and he is therefore a better source than I am - and a very much better source than you.
Those of us who are open to nuances will also realize that the paper you quote never said that Hutchinsons story was dismissed as being wrong. They instead clearly indicated that it needed to be awared a REDUCED interest, instead of no interest at all - the latter of course being the case with false stories.

So itīs all there, once we can read it from a non-Hutchinsonological angle. But that you canīt, not for the life of you. So you try to trumph Dew (major joke!) with what little and faulty knowledge you have, and you disregard the crystal clear pointer the paper makes about parts of the value of Hutchinsons story still being there.

And how does that work for you? Not very well, Iīm afraid.

So keep on quoting, Ben, by all means. But next time over, you really need to find one single example of somebody, press or police, telling us that Hutchinson was regarded as an unreliable man. Or a liar. Or an attention-seeker. So far, you are the only source for these rather remarkable accusations against a man about whom not a contemporary source had anything negative to say.

All the best, and good luck with your quest,
Fisherman