Hutchinsons statement....

[Michael W Richards]

I disagree, Jon, inasmuch as Mr Astrakhan was sporting rather more than just a white collar and cuffs, wasn't he?

I am with you on this point Sam, the description contains articles that have legitimate and immediate value to a thief,..although... even clothing was used as currency during those years, so the idea that someone might just steal clothing from someone isn't farfetched. Hard to pawn once reported in the papers.

[Abby Normal]

How does that work Abby?

"I'll rehearse phrases already published in the press, and commit them to memory, to make my story more believable"????

Hutchinson can't put a simple phrase together now?

Hi wick
I think when he was getting his descriptions of the various suspects in the papers he also picked up on the actual phrasing and used it either consciously (maybe to sound more "official" when speaking to the police) or subconsciously.

[Michael W Richards]

Or
He could have been simply worried that he had been seen near the murder site and supposed that if he used a description that was similar to to other descriptions they would validate each other and throw the light of suspicion on that character.
Doesn't make him dumb doesn't make him guilty, makes him maybe worried though.

Question: If Hutchinson was indeed Wideawake and not at the Inquest, what would he have to fear about being "seen" near the murder? The eyewitness who saw Wideawake never had a chance to identify Hutchinson, and likely couldn't do so even if he had presented himself to all the witnesses at the Inquest. Someone saw someone, that's all there is really.

He had no reason to come forward at all if he feared anything. So...we ask ourselves, why did he come forward"? Why would he make a claim that places him in the shoes of a man seen, as you say, lurking near a soon to be murder scene? Can we be certain he knew Mary Kelly as he claimed...no. Can we be certain that he was Wideawake...no. Can we be certain that he saw Mary Kelly outside of her room after the time it went silent and dark...no. Can we be certain he saw a respectably dressed person with Mary...no.

The only thing that bears investigation is why he chose to do what he did. If he was covering for someone..or he intended to create an impression that Wideawake, a figure that is largely responsible for a Pardon Offer on Saturday, was actually someone who was a friend of Mary and looking out for her interests, that would lead to further investigation as to whom he was protecting...but if he just wanted a piece of the "limelight"...like so many others in these cases, then he can be discarded just like he was shortly after making his statement.

[Abby Normal]

Question: If Hutchinson was indeed Wideawake and not at the Inquest, what would he have to fear about being "seen" near the murder? The eyewitness who saw Wideawake never had a chance to identify Hutchinson, and likely couldn't do so even if he had presented himself to all the witnesses at the Inquest. Someone saw someone, that's all there is really.

He had no reason to come forward at all if he feared anything. So...we ask ourselves, why did he come forward"? Why would he make a claim that places him in the shoes of a man seen, as you say, lurking near a soon to be murder scene? Can we be certain he knew Mary Kelly as he claimed...no. Can we be certain that he was Wideawake...no. Can we be certain that he saw Mary Kelly outside of her room after the time it went silent and dark...no. Can we be certain he saw a respectably dressed person with Mary...no.

The only thing that bears investigation is why he chose to do what he did. If he was covering for someone..or he intended to create an impression that Wideawake, a figure that is largely responsible for a Pardon Offer on Saturday, was actually someone who was a friend of Mary and looking out for her interests, that would lead to further investigation as to whom he was protecting...but if he just wanted a piece of the "limelight"...like so many others in these cases, then he can be discarded just like he was shortly after making his statement.

Because if he thought he had been spotted probably by Sarah Lewis, whether guilty of anything or not, he may have thought she knew who he was and felt he had better come forward voluntarily rather than being looked for by police.

Or simply she had nothing to do with him coming forward and he was looking for personal gain.

[andy1867]

Question: If Hutchinson was indeed Wideawake and not at the Inquest, what would he have to fear about being "seen" near the murder? The eyewitness who saw Wideawake never had a chance to identify Hutchinson, and likely couldn't do so even if he had presented himself to all the witnesses at the Inquest. Someone saw someone, that's all there is really.

He had no reason to come forward at all if he feared anything. So...we ask ourselves, why did he come forward"? Why would he make a claim that places him in the shoes of a man seen, as you say, lurking near a soon to be murder scene? Can we be certain he knew Mary Kelly as he claimed...no. Can we be certain that he was Wideawake...no. Can we be certain that he saw Mary Kelly outside of her room after the time it went silent and dark...no. Can we be certain he saw a respectably dressed person with Mary...no.

The only thing that bears investigation is why he chose to do what he did. If he was covering for someone..or he intended to create an impression that Wideawake, a figure that is largely responsible for a Pardon Offer on Saturday, was actually someone who was a friend of Mary and looking out for her interests, that would lead to further investigation as to whom he was protecting...but if he just wanted a piece of the "limelight"...like so many others in these cases, then he can be discarded just like he was shortly after making his statement.

No doubt a good question Michael,but only Hutchinson could answer it really.
Whether he thought he might have been seen and thought it better to give his statement ? I honestly don't know
As you say the only thing that bears investigation is why he chose to do what he did
Which brings us back to your first question doesn't it ?

I posited that maybe he thought he had been seen and felt he had to get his story in,whether he used newspapers from the previous day to embellish it...I have no idea, why he would do that ? No idea. ...There, again it's all conjecture isn't it
Many thanks for your answer though

[Wickerman]

Or
He could have been simply worried that he had been seen near the murder site and supposed that if he used a description that was similar to to other descriptions they would validate each other and throw the light of suspicion on that character.
Doesn't make him dumb doesn't make him guilty, makes him maybe worried though.

But in what way does the description he gave match previous "suspicious" characters?

Exactly my thoughts, Andy. He may very well have come up with the idea of using bits & pieces from other descriptions to make it more believable and give him the golden watch, horse-shoe tie-pin, gaiters etc. to make him so outstanding (with regards to Kelly as well) to explain why he took notice of him in the first place and why it wasn’t odd to keep a good eye on the man and follow the couple. Smart rather than dumb, I'd say.

All the best,
Frank

And then add details that appear nowhere else?
I thought the idea was to describe someone who has already been described (as Andy said), but then you add those details that no-one else saw. Which pulls the rug right out from Andy's argument.
So now the new suspect looks nothing like previous "well-dressed men".

You can't have it both ways guy's. Hutch is either copying previous 'descriptions', or he's making one up to look different.
Which is it?

[Wickerman]

I am with you on this point Sam, the description contains articles that have legitimate and immediate value to a thief,..although... even clothing was used as currency during those years, so the idea that someone might just steal clothing from someone isn't farfetched. Hard to pawn once reported in the papers.

Anybody (with criminal intent) would have benefited more by mugging Astrachan and pawning the 'bling', than what the press would pay for a 'witness' story, or the police might pay for his time looking for the man.

[Michael W Richards]

Anybody (with criminal intent) would have benefited more by mugging Astrachan and pawning the 'bling', than what the press would pay for a 'witness' story, or the police might pay for his time looking for the man.

A few pages back he wasnt dressed in any specific manner according to you, now you acknowledge "bling"...are your arguments founded on a desire to be contrary Jon?

[Wickerman]

Hi wick
I think when he was getting his descriptions of the various suspects in the papers he also picked up on the actual phrasing and used it either consciously (maybe to sound more "official" when speaking to the police) or subconsciously.

I'm not sure what phrases you are looking at, beyond the one you mentioned in an earlier post ("the murdered woman, Kelly"?).

When someone disguises themselves in an attempt to be someone else, we expect they will change their clothes, and naturally adopt a different name. But how many think to change the way they talk? People often write, the same way they talk.

Ok, here's a theory.....
If you think you have spotted phrases in newspaper articles that are duplicated in Hutchinson's statement to police, then maybe this is because that is the way he spoke, and it's the way he wrote.

To date, no-one has been able to find this specific George Hutchinson, so is this because that was not his real name?
The phrase "the murdered woman, Kelly", came from an agency article, this article appears in several newspapers all on the same day. Unfortunately, no paper that published the story gave it any attribution. It most likely came from one of the two most prominent agency's - The Press Association, or The Central News?

Interesting that only the Central News managed to print an interview with this "George Hutchinson". No other newspaper managed to get him to talk, or maybe they just couldn't find him?
Was there a deception going on here?

We shouldn't forget that the Central News was alleged to have manufactured that previous deception of the "Dear Boss" letter.

Why don't you see if you can find attribution for all these phrases - you know them better than I do. Just maybe they mostly come from Central News stories.

Personally, I think it is more likely that this is just the way people spoke in general back in the 19th century.

[Wickerman]

A few pages back he wasnt dressed in any specific manner according to you, now you acknowledge "bling"...are your arguments founded on a desire to be contrary Jon?

I think you'll find Michael that my argument has been that his appearance did not automatically suggest a "Toff", as some would have it.
Also, that his attire was not so special, more like standard attire for a night out.

I have just taken issue with the suggestion that Hutchinson's suspect was inspired from press articles which describe "well-dressed" men. Yet none of these press articles ever mentioned the 'bling'. Sorry for the modern terminology. I was just too lazy to write "Gaiters, horse-shoe tie-pin, Gold watch chain and red seal, Astrachan coat".....there see, you made me do it again!!!

[FrankO]

And then add details that appear nowhere else?
I thought the idea was to describe someone who has already been described (as Andy said), but then you add those details that no-one else saw. Which pulls the rug right out from Andy's argument.
So now the new suspect looks nothing like previous "well-dressed men".

You can't have it both ways guy's. Hutch is either copying previous 'descriptions', or he's making one up to look different.
Which is it?

It’s not as intricate as you propose, Jon. There’s no new suspect, no “which is it?”, no rules of what we can and can’t say about Hutchinson’s ‘suspect’ (as long as it doesn’t do violence to the evidence).

Andy proposed Hutchinson could have been simply worried that he had been seen near the murder site and supposed that if he used a description that was similar to to other descriptions they would validate each other and throw the light of suspicion on that character. I agree with that & just added something which is supported by what Hutchinson himself told Abberline according to his report of 12 November 1888: “Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them.” And lastly, stories were going around about a suspiciously acting well-dressed man.

That’s all. Nothing irregular or untoward and all in line with the existing evidence. Whether Andy agrees with my addition, I don’t know. If he wishes to comment on it, we’ll read it.

[Wickerman]

It’s not as intricate as you propose, Jon. There’s no new suspect, no “which is it?”, no rules of what we can and can’t say about Hutchinson’s ‘suspect’ (as long as it doesn’t do violence to the evidence).

Frank, it's the basis for the argument that I am trying to get to.

A number of posters prefer to believe Hutch made up his 'suspect', essentially suggesting Astrachan never existed.
Part of the argument is what we are addressing now. That Hutch used details already in print over the weekend. What I am trying to get at is, what are these details?

It's all very well to jump on a favorite theory of a suspect described in, "the papers", but how many of these posters have actually read "the papers"?
What, specifically, do "the papers" say?

The most significant source is, what appears to be, the Central News article of Nov. 10th.
So, what do we get from this article?

Here is the man described by John McCarthy:
"with a young man with a dark moustache....... The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed."

The man described by Mrs Maxwell:
"He was a short, stout man, about fifty years of age. I did not notice what he had on, but I saw that he wore a kind of plaid coat."

The man described by Mrs Paumier:
"the man had a black moustache, was about five feet six inches high, and wore a black silk hat, a black coat, and speckled trousers. He also carried a black shiny bag about a foot in depth and a foot and a half in length."

The man seen by Sarah Ronay:
"a man, wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag,"

Now, lets put this theory to the test.
Did Astrachan have a black moustache, and seemed respectably dressed? - Yes.

Was he short & stout? - No.
Was he about fifty years of age? - No.
Did he wear a plaid coat? - No.

Was he about 5ft 6in tall? - Yes.
Did he wear a black silk hat? - No.
Or speckled trousers? - No.
Or, and most importantly, did Astrachan carry that proverbial, sinister, and ominous looking Black Bag? - No!!!

Thee most distinguishable characteristic is totally missing - the Black Bag.
You must admit yourself that if anyone is going to invent a suspect to take the focus off himself, he could not miss including that very noticeable and characteristic Black Bag, that everyone had been reading about.

There are some very identifiable details in the various press articles over the weekend (plaid coat, Silk hat, black bag), yet Hutchinson ignored most of thee most identifiable ones, but then he threw in a handful of details of his own (Gaiters, Astrachan collar & cuffs, Gold watch chain, red seal, etc.), that nobody had ever seen in print associated with any suspect in these murders.

Frank, the argument does not stand up to scrutiny.
It fails miserably as soon as we look at the types of description that were available to use over that weekend.

All theories should be tested, checking exactly what details were associated with various suspects is 'the test', and the argument failed.

So, There is no basis to argue that Hutchinson invented his suspect, where he derived the details from previous press reports.

[Abby Normal]

Frank, it's the basis for the argument that I am trying to get to.

A number of posters prefer to believe Hutch made up his 'suspect', essentially suggesting Astrachan never existed.
Part of the argument is what we are addressing now. That Hutch used details already in print over the weekend. What I am trying to get at is, what are these details?

It's all very well to jump on a favorite theory of a suspect described in, "the papers", but how many of these posters have actually read "the papers"?
What, specifically, do "the papers" say?

The most significant source is, what appears to be, the Central News article of Nov. 10th.
So, what do we get from this article?

Here is the man described by John McCarthy:
"with a young man with a dark moustache....... The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed."

The man described by Mrs Maxwell:
"He was a short, stout man, about fifty years of age. I did not notice what he had on, but I saw that he wore a kind of plaid coat."

The man described by Mrs Paumier:
"the man had a black moustache, was about five feet six inches high, and wore a black silk hat, a black coat, and speckled trousers. He also carried a black shiny bag about a foot in depth and a foot and a half in length."

The man seen by Sarah Ronay:
"a man, wearing a tall hat and a black coat, and carrying a black bag,"

Now, lets put this theory to the test.
Did Astrachan have a black moustache, and seemed respectably dressed? - Yes.

Was he short & stout? - No.
Was he about fifty years of age? - No.
Did he wear a plaid coat? - No.

Was he about 5ft 6in tall? - Yes.
Did he wear a black silk hat? - No.
Or speckled trousers? - No.
Or, and most importantly, did Astrachan carry that proverbial, sinister, and ominous looking Black Bag? - No!!!

Thee most distinguishable characteristic is totally missing - the Black Bag.
You must admit yourself that if anyone is going to invent a suspect to take the focus off himself, he could not miss including that very noticeable and characteristic Black Bag, that everyone had been reading about.

There are some very identifiable details in the various press articles over the weekend (plaid coat, Silk hat, black bag), yet Hutchinson ignored most of thee most identifiable ones, but then he threw in a handful of details of his own (Gaiters, Astrachan collar & cuffs, Gold watch chain, red seal, etc.), that nobody had ever seen in print associated with any suspect in these murders.

Frank, the argument does not stand up to scrutiny.
It fails miserably as soon as we look at the types of description that were available to use over that weekend.

All theories should be tested, checking exactly what details were associated with various suspects is 'the test', and the argument failed.

So, There is no basis to argue that Hutchinson invented his suspect, where he derived the details from previous press reports.

sure he didn't say "black Bag"-he said carrying a knife sized package.
you left out sailor mans red hankercheif.
one of the prevelant theories was that the killer was Jewish-hutch sure made that one clear.

The rest of the rich looking attire-horseshoe pin, spats, astracan etc. coat was probably hutchs own embellishment-maybe from one of the rich jewish horse owners that hutch had to clean the **** up for as a groom whom he was jealous of.

add to that the exact phrasings like "the murdered woman Kelly" cribbed from the papers, the script like story and dastardly curled up mustache and surly looking glance for good measure and I would posit that Hutch used descriptions from the paper and his own touches to create Astracan Man.

oh and he is so most definite he can ID, as a matter of fact he thinks he saw him again and lives in the area!

LOL. Bullshit.

[Wickerman]

sure he didn't say "black Bag"-he said carrying a knife sized package.

An 8 inch package Abby.
Given a typical knife handle alone is about 4-5 inch long, this blade of about 3-4 inch length might have been suitable for pealing apples, potatoes or whittling wood. But we have no idea it was a knife at all.

you left out sailor mans red hankercheif.

And the peaked cap, no doubt?

one of the prevelant theories was that the killer was Jewish-hutch sure made that one clear.

Given the high percentage of Jews in the East end, that is nothing remarkable in itself.

So the objections you raise above do not lend support for the idea that Hutch copied the look of his suspect from the weekend papers.

The rest of the rich looking attire-horseshoe pin, spats, astracan etc. coat was probably hutchs own embellishment-maybe from one of the rich jewish horse owners that hutch had to clean the **** up for as a groom whom he was jealous of.

I do not doubt the accessories he noted came from Hutch, they are not seen in the weekend press. The question becomes, were they real or just his imagination.

add to that the exact phrasings like "the murdered woman Kelly" cribbed from the papers, the script like story and dastardly curled up mustache and surly looking glance for good measure and I would posit that Hutch used descriptions from the paper and his own touches to create Astracan Man.

Ah, a touch of anachronism there I suspect.
You note a "dastardly curled up moustache", well this view came from the movies.
Such a belief did not exist in the 1880's, movies had yet to be invented

Do you remember any more of those phrases?

[FrankO]

Frank, it's the basis for the argument that I am trying to get to.

A number of posters prefer to believe Hutch made up his 'suspect', essentially suggesting Astrachan never existed.
Part of the argument is what we are addressing now. That Hutch used details already in print over the weekend. What I am trying to get at is, what are these details?

Hi Jon,

I have to admit that I had not been following the whole discussion and, therefore, had missed the point you were trying to get to. Apologies.

Now that I know your point, I agree that, other than the “well-dressedness” of Hutchinson’s ‘suspect’, there isn’t any overlap between Hutchinson’s description and those of others made over the weekend.

So, There is no basis to argue that Hutchinson invented his suspect, where he derived the details from previous press reports.

I agree that there’s no good case to be made using the argument that Hutchinson derived many details from previous press reports. However, there’s a number of things in his (police and newspaper) story and his coming forward that makes me quite cautious putting stock in his story.