Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, Dew doesn't doubt that Hutchinson saw what he said he saw, he suggests that Hutch (and Mrs Maxwell) told the truth but were mistaken about the day of the sighting. That's not at all the same as thinking the whole incident was made up.

I'm not suggesting that Dew implied Hutchinson made it all up, only that he favoured Cox's Mr Blotchy over Hutchinson's Mr Astrakhan. Whatever Dew's reasons, it's apparent that he did not share Abberline's faith in Hutchinson's testimony.

[Abby Normal]

So Hutch/Blotch was the man turning the school house building in Bucks Row when Lechmere entered Bucks Row?
I see.
I thought that was Kosminski.
Or Levy.
Or Druitt.
Or Hyams.
Or Kelly.
Or Le Grand.
Or Lewis Carroll.
Or van Gogh.
Or Francis Thompson.
Or anybody else, regardless who, as long as it was not Lechmere who dun´it!

Hi fish
If blotchy killed Mary then yes he killed Polly.
If hutch killed Mary then yes he killed Polly.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi fish
If blotchy killed Mary then yes he killed Polly.
If hutch killed Mary then yes he killed Polly.

And, to be even-handed, if Astrakhan killed Mary, then he probably killed Polly, too.

[Harry D]

Suffice to say, isn't it possible that Astrakhan Man did exist but Hutchinson simply embellished his description to give his story more credibility?

[Sam Flynn]

Suffice to say, isn't it possible that Astrakhan Man did exist but Hutchinson simply embellished his description to give his story more credibility?

Yes, but I think it's quite possible that he embellished the stories of Mrs "Kennedy" and others, to create his story in the first place.

[John Wheat]

So Hutch/Blotch was the man turning the school house building in Bucks Row when Lechmere entered Bucks Row?
I see.
I thought that was Kosminski.
Or Levy.
Or Druitt.
Or Hyams.
Or Kelly.
Or Le Grand.
Or Lewis Carroll.
Or van Gogh.
Or Francis Thompson.
Or anybody else, regardless who, as long as it was not Lechmere who dun´it!

It was Bury. Lechmere was just a witness.

[Abby Normal]

And, to be even-handed, if Astrakhan killed Mary, then he probably killed Polly, too.

Yes of course. But if a man killed anyone I'll eat my hat.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, but I think it's quite possible that he embellished the stories of Mrs "Kennedy" and others, to create his story in the first place.

Hi sam Harry
Possibly, but I doubt it. If he really saw a man with Mary in the same circumstances he would know not to embellish, as it would be good enough to see anybody with her. And if he embellished it would ruin any chance for reward 15 minutes of fame.

[Sam Flynn]

HIf he really saw a man with Mary in the same circumstances he would know not to embellish, as it would be good enough to see anybody with her. And if he embellished it would ruin any chance for reward 15 minutes of fame.

Not if he could come up with an even "better" suspect than Mrs Kennedy, Sarah Roney and various unnamed acquaintance of the deceased, all of whose stories were reported by the popular press on the 10th November.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Aberline's opinion is not supported by evidence,therefor is of little value.

An Inspector will base his opinion on the evidence available at the time.
This evidence is not available to us over a century later, all we have is one initial statement c/w a few press reports and one police report.

As the vast majority of the paperwork on this case has long since vanished we have to be satisfied with official opinions derived from that evidence.

Those claims,as far as anyone can tell,were not substanciated by a successful police investigation.

Right, it was early evening on Monday, so the police still had time to make some background checks. Example:
- We do not know if Abberline sent an officer to Great Pearl Street to get hold of Sarah Lewis.
- We do not know if Abberline obtained the notebooks of the duty constables who patrolled Dorset St. & Commercial St. Friday morning between 2-3:00 am.
- We do not know if Abberline telegraphed his opposite number in Romford to send a constable to the address where Hutchinson visited to confirm that part of his story (though what that has to do with the murder is another question).
Abberline only needs to confirm something, not every detail. Sufficient to establish that he was indeed in Dorset St. at that hour.

There was time for all of this, but we don't know it it was done.

The person as described by Hutchinson was not found,....

Neither was Blotchy, or Broad-shouldered-man from Berner St. nor Red Necktie-man from Duke St. so why are you focused on Astrachan?

Kelly cannot be placed on the street at the time stated by Hutchinson.

Mrs Kennedy said she saw Kelly at 3:00 am out side the Britannia.

a trip to Romford cannot be confirmed.

We don't know if it was, or not.

Even his claim of standing in Dorset Street,is disbelieved by some,..

Some people on Casebook typically disbelieve what does not fit their theory, regardless of whether their objection makes any sense.

I didn't say the information on Isaacs was the result of someone approaching the police.By the same token as his (Isaac)departure was reported,so could the departure of Hutchinson,had he departed the Victoria Home.By police enquiries.

What that example shows is that Mary Cusins did not go out of her way to report Isaacs missing. So why should anyone at the Victoria Home go out of their way to report Hutchinson missing, especially when residents there come and go on a regular basis.
Besides, if Hutchinson needs to get out quick all he has to do is put the word around that he just received a job offer back in Romford, "gotta go".
Why would anyone at the home report that to police?

The police had no plans to conduct any door-to-door search involving the Victoria Home after the inquest, so I don't understand why you keep bringing this issue up.

In an earlier post on this thread you claimed you were motivated by evidence,something you claimed was lacking in other posters.Well where is the evidence,supporting your claim, that Mary Kelly made three separate trips from her room that night.

I posted that earlier.
- Cox said she saw Kelly with Blotchy at 11:45 pm, Thursday night.
- Hutchinson said he saw Kelly around 2:30 am Friday morning.
- Mrs Kennedy said she saw Kelly at 3:00 am Friday morning.

These are all statements to police, not gossip in the press.
This is why their words constitute evidence, regardless what individuals today think of these people.

[Wickerman]

Here's a little detail that supports Kelly being out after her liaison with Blotchy, reported in five newspapers.

The Press Association:
Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.
Sheffield Evening Telegraph, Dundee Courier, Nottingham Evening Post, Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, Nov 14th 1888.

[Wickerman]

I'm not suggesting that Dew implied Hutchinson made it all up, only that he favoured Cox's Mr Blotchy over Hutchinson's Mr Astrakhan. Whatever Dew's reasons, it's apparent that he did not share Abberline's faith in Hutchinson's testimony.

That sounds fair, something similar was reported in the Echo, which suggests the police were divided over both suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan.

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer.
Echo, 19 Nov.

It seems quite reasonable to accept the authorities were either divided, or in pursuit of two very different suspects.
Neither of which bore fruit, so it is not justified to say Astrachan is doubtful because he was never found (as per Harry), neither was Blotchy found, but then neither was any of the previous suspects.
It's a false argument.

What it does show is that the claim of Hutchinson being discredited (reported by the Star on the 15th) was demonstrably false.

[Sam Flynn]

It seems quite reasonable to accept the authorities were either divided, or in pursuit of two very different suspects.

A fair deduction, in light of the evidence.

What it does show is that the claim of Hutchinson being discredited (reported by the Star on the 15th) was demonstrably false.

I always read that as Hutchinson's story being disbelieved, rather than Hutchinson being personally "discredited" (as in "found to be disreputable"). That being the case, it may have been that some police no longer believed Hutchinson's story, but that others continued to see it as a legitimate lead, Abberline probably among the latter.

[Wickerman]

A fair deduction, in light of the evidence.I always read that as Hutchinson's story being disbelieved, rather than Hutchinson being personally "discredited" (as in "found to be disreputable"). That being the case, it may have been that some police no longer believed Hutchinson's story, but that others continued to see it as a legitimate lead, Abberline probably among the latter.

I wouldn't disagree with that interpretation because so long as they are investigating his story then it means his story was not found to be false in any way.
The press were reporting, at least until the 19th of Nov., that Astrachan was still a viable suspect. And, as with all the other suspects, Astrachan & the rest eventually fade from being the topic of the hour.

Just looking back at an earlier post, the one from the Press Association that speaks to Kelly being seen out between 2:00-3:00 am.

This was dated Nov. 14th. As the police had already interviewed some residents of Millers Court on the evening of the 9th, those being the statements collected for the inquest. It strikes me as odd that this Press Association report should imply a second set of interviews had taken place.

Perhaps, this was decided as a result of Hutchinson coming forward on the evening of the 12th.
Did the police choose to go back to Millers Court on the 13th to talk to more residents in order to verify Hutchinson's story?
It seems the press got wind of this and reported it in the papers the next morning - Nov. 14th.

[harry]

Jon, And what evidence was available? Evidence that supports or distracts from Hutchinson's? How can something that is missing,of which there is no knowledge,ever be proved to have existed. Straying a little it seems,from your oft repeated claims of only dealing with known evidence.

The police had no plans to conduct any door-to-door search of the Victoria home after the inquest.How do you know that? How could Hutchinson know that,to the extent that would influence him in staying or leaving,if the need was there.

Glad you admit you do not know what was done,neither do I,but what I do know is that some law enforcement officers,believe a good knowledge of the informant Is as vital as the information they impart,and that opinion only,
does not prove much.

I only focuss on A man when discussing Hutchinson.I do not consider the others you mention,as being part of his story.