Hutchinsons statement....

[Varqm]

Look at what you wrote.

You admit "we do not know", correct. Yet you offer a theory.
Theories come from evidence, not from speculation.
All you have is speculation, there is no evidence for your theory.

You ask: "if somebody says something, it is true?".
What someone said is part of the historical record, that is why it matters.

I use what is regarded as evidence, whether it is in police documents, or newspapers. What we read is part of the historical record.
As opposed to the accusations against Hutchinson which are modern speculations not supported by any evidence.

That, is the difference.

It's clear in the post that you and I do not know,not even Abberline (as stated in my previous posts).But your reason for believing Hutchinson is "just because" - with no reason,no argument except Hutch said it.That's silly.You believe in everything people say? I own the London Bridge.I swear,I'll sell it to you.
Use your common sense.We are dealing with people and circumstances.I have stated my reasons for my belief/reasoning in previous posts.

[Joshua Rogan]

I really don't know.The inquest started in the morning.How long did the inquest last?Judging from the questions asked from the witnesses not long.Let' s say 3-4 hours.Let's say it started at 11:00 A.M -could be earlier, finished,generously, at 3:00 PM? 4:00 PM?.You don't know either, I'm estimating.
You don't know if Hutchinson heard,from any source,either.But he had an opportunity.

For info....The inquest did officially open at about 11am, but it wasn't until around noon that the first witness took the stand.

[Michael W Richards]

I think the best one can say about old Hutch is that it is very suspicious that someone came forward and claimed the role of Sarah Lewis's lurking man. Did he know someone had seen him, did he know someone had seen someone? The lurking man is either a friend looking out for her, a stalker or peeper, or a lookout for someone in the room, or a lookout for someone tracking the man in the room, or for Mary. According to his statement, that man in the room would be the lavishly appointed Astrakan Man.

Why is it then that Blotchy doesn't come forward? He could clear suspicions by claiming he had left silently and unseen sometime before that lurking man sighting, and then Hutch brings in Astrakan Man to redirect the attention for him. He could have come in Tuesday morning after reading about Hutch. And why does someone matching Blotchys description run from a policeman after being pointed out by a bystander as someone matching Blotchys description?

Personally, I think someone wanted to know when that room, and court, were silent. I think Wideawake was to be the one who watched for him. I'm not sure Hutch was Wideawake though. I think that the pardon offer reflects a belief that more than one person orchestrated this murder, which would by definition rule out a lone killer.

[andy1867]

If, as someone posted previously, the person Hutchinson saw did seem more "Affluent" than the usual customer such as Kelly would attract, maybe this could explain his detailed description, and also his loitering in the vicinity.
As he did not have sixpence to lend TO Mary Kelly, maybe he thought he would be in a position to lend a sixpence OFF Mary Kelly, if Mr "Affluent" had paid more than the usual going rate

[Sam Flynn]

Hutchinson was a Groom, so we are told.

Among the skills you need to be a good Groom, we read:

You’ll need:

- good observational skills
- patience
- good communication skills
- competence in riding

https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/horse-groom

A Groom is also responsible for the presentation of the horse at shows - every little detail....

Yes, it's a well-known fact that those among us with the most acute perception and retentive memories are tailor-made for a career in combing animal hair.

[Sam Flynn]

Certainly Hutchinson could not have been the first witness that Abberline ever questioned. And I seriously doubt that Abberline would not have picked up on the extraordinary detail in Hutch's statement.

Sometimes, an experienced detective's desperation for leads can skew their judgment. Perhaps George Hutchinson's statement was to Abberline what the "Wearside Jack" tape and letters were to George Oldfield.

[Abby Normal]

Sometimes, an experienced detective's desperation for leads can skew their judgment. Perhaps George Hutchinson's statement was to Abberline what the "Wearside Jack" tape and letters were to George Oldfield.

I'm sure there was a dose of wishful thinking there.

as ive mentioned before, shortly after Abberline heard about waiting man via sarah lewis at the inquest, in walks the waiting man to corroborate.

ive often felt this was one of the main reasons abberline initially believed him.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm sure there was a dose of wishful thinking there.

I don't set too much store in the story that Abberline exclaimed "You've got Jack the Ripper at last" when Godley arrested Klosowski, but - if true - it shows just how eager Abberline was to close the case, even a decade and a half after the event.

[Varqm]

Where is it that "establishes" that Hutchinson "actually" went to Romford,that he "actually" was Mary Kelly's friend,etc.

[Varqm]

For info....The inquest did officially open at about 11am, but it wasn't until around noon that the first witness took the stand.

Thanks.

[Varqm]

"I suppose that it could be argued that he was willing to overlook it as being suspicious in and of itself thinking that this might be the lead that would break the case." CD

Good point.There was some chance it was true.The police needed leads.They went with him while,sensibly,checking out his story.

[Wickerman]

It's clear in the post that you and I do not know,not even Abberline (as stated in my previous posts).But your reason for believing Hutchinson is "just because" - with no reason,no argument except Hutch said it.That's silly.

I don't need a reason.
Abberline accepted his story, he accepted his credibility.
Abberline knew more about what Hutchinson told him than we do.
We are drawing conclusions from what is in the statement, but Hutch was later interrogated by Abberline, no record of this interrogation has survived.

You believe in everything people say? I own the London Bridge.I swear,I'll sell it to you.
Use your common sense.We are dealing with people and circumstances.I have stated my reasons for my belief/reasoning in previous posts.

You bought the London Bridge? - I'm not surprised.

When anyone makes a statement to police, it is expected to be true.
Why do you think Mrs Maxwell received such a grilling over the time she said she saw Mary Kelly?
It makes no sense whatsoever to arbitrarily choose to believe one statement, but not another, unless you have some factual evidence to discredit the witness.
That, is what you are doing.

You need a factual reason to dismiss the claims of a witness, that or a conflicting statement which contests what is being claimed.

Cherry picking what suits your theory is what kids do.

[c.d.]

Sometimes, an experienced detective's desperation for leads can skew their judgment. Perhaps George Hutchinson's statement was to Abberline what the "Wearside Jack" tape and letters were to George Oldfield.

Hello Sam,

That is certainly possible but Abberline wasn't acting in a vacuum. Are we to believe that not one single person involved with Hutch said damn that just has to be a made up story? It would seem that somehow the police got over the hurdle of the extraordinary detail in his story at least initially.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Sam,

That is certainly possible but Abberline wasn't acting in a vacuum. Are we to believe that not one single person involved with Hutch said damn that just has to be a made up story? It would seem that somehow the police got over the hurdle of the extraordinary detail in his story at least initially.

c.d.

Because moments after they heard Sarah Lewis talk about waiting man, in walks waiting man, corroborating her story and his, and also providing info that initially at least that described a good suspect and therefore a good witness. Himself.

And it seems it only took a day or so for them to figure out he was full of it.

[Sam Flynn]

That is certainly possible but Abberline wasn't acting in a vacuum. Are we to believe that not one single person involved with Hutch said damn that just has to be a made up story?

There were detectives, and other experts, on the Yorkshire Ripper case who weren't taken in by the "Wearside Jack" hoaxes, but that didn't prevent the senior detective in charge of the investigation from taking the bait. It could well be that this state of affairs resulted in Peter Sutcliffe's taking at least three more victims.