Hutchinsons statement....

[Wickerman]

bingo
it shows stalking behavior at worst and at best wanting to see mary again, possibly for a hook up and or place to crash. in between it shows an unusual interest in her, perhaps a dab of jealousy.

But does it make him her killer?

[Wickerman]

that scenario would put hutch right back in the cross hairs though, and I don't think mr wicky would want that, nosiree.

But anyone who thinks Hutch was the killer should have no argument with the proposal. We don't know where Hutch was after he left Millers Court about 3:00 am.
The suspect though, in this scenario is the Britannia-man, the same one who accosted women earlier in the week. A far more practical suspect, he's been hiding in plain sight all the time.

[Michael W Richards]

The accusation that he lied about his encounter is invalidated by Sarah Lewis herself. The court record is brief and not as detailed as the press versions, here we read more of what she stated to the court:

In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Daily News, 13 Nov. 1888.

Lewis saw the lurker, and the couple pass up the court at the same time, confirming Hutchinson's story. Lewis did not know Mary Kelly by sight so she couldn't tell the court who the woman was.

What this demonstrates is, that Hutchinson did not get the wrong night, and also that Hutchinson did not 'invent' Astrakhan.
However, Lewis was not asked to describe the man she saw, which is unfortunate, but the court was not aware that Lewis had likely actually seen Mary Kelly with a client.

Seems to me that Hutchinson came in after Sarah had been on the stand, he may well have been in there and taken notes for all we know, and its also a stretch to state somewhat empirically that they were describing the same couple. They were both drunk in her account, to name but one discrepancy. The Astrakan Man may well be a confluence of reality and imagination, but at the very least parts of Hutchinsons rather specific recollections were almost certainly fabricated.

Perhaps in modern context,... because we can prove that the president of the united states..notice the lower case.... has knowingly and provably lied about many things, does that then make any claim he makes suspect..or only the ones that are remarkable in respects? We can say fairly safely some of his account, (Hutch), was assuredly made up. For me, that makes the remarkable feature of his story less trustworthy. The remarkable feature being that he was actually friends with Mary Kelly and spoke with her after 1:30am on the streets with someone he could identify down to a specific lapel pin..since all we know for certain is that her candle was blown out and her room was silent just before 1:30.

Hutchinsons story was not used as the foundation for any specific police actions after Nov 14th, and we have statements suggesting that he, or his account, was "discredited". Since he said he and Mary were friends and he waits four full days before offering what, if true, is essential circumstantial evidence in her murder investigation (which would be useless after 4 days...that "suspect could be on a ship bound for India for a few days already), it seems reasonable his motivations for coming forward were not to provide the police with a viable suspect they might pursue.

[Wickerman]

Seems to me that Hutchinson came in after Sarah had been on the stand, he may well have been in there and taken notes for all we know....

In that case Hutchinson would have been seen by Abberline. The town hall room was extremely small and very few members of the public were admitted.

....and its also a stretch to state somewhat empirically that they were describing the same couple.

Two stories, both involving a couple passing up the court, and a lurker looking up the court, at the same time, at the same location, and you don't see the connection?
Are you kidding?

They were both drunk in her account, to name but one discrepancy.

Michael.
The Daily Telegraph worded it this way:
The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink.

We must look at all the press coverage. Critiquing one version without consulting the others will only provide you with a partial story.

The Astrakan Man may well be a confluence of reality and imagination, but at the very least parts of Hutchinsons rather specific recollections were almost certainly fabricated.

Well thats conjecture - lets stick with what is in evidence, leave emotion out of it.

Hutchinsons story was not used as the foundation for any specific police actions after Nov 14th,...

If Hutchinson's story was dismissed by police (who cares what the Star thought), it is difficult to understand why, when the middle-aged Jew, Joseph Isaacs, sporting an Astrachan coat, was arrested on Dec. 6th, that Abberline retorted "we've got the right man at last", or words to that effect.

[Wickerman]

I agree. Hutchinson's attention to detail, I'd suggest, went rather further than most people's would have under such circumstances.

There's no question he went into great detail. The usual objection is "no-one could remember detail to that extent", which is demonstrably and patently untrue.
So why keep flogging a dead horse?

You grade his words as:
".....further than most people's would have under such circumstances."

Sure, no problem.
We don't know who Hutchinson was, or what abilities he had.
So why characterize him as "normal", and then dismiss him, 'because "normal" people can't do that'?

My eldest daughter is a supervisor in a nursing home. One of the residents is an old man who is one of these people who you can identify a past event, or just pick a past calendar date, even 30 -50 years ago, and he can tell you the day of the week.

That is not "normal" by any stretch of the imagination. Yet he is no-one special, just an ordinary pensioner.
Why does everybody HAVE to be "normal", and then judged accordingly?

The world is full of people who have exceptional abilities, yet are just everyday folk. I know it, and you know it - so why pretend you don't?

[John Wheat]

What rules out more observant than many others?

Nothing whatsoever.

[caz]

that scenario would put hutch right back in the cross hairs though, and I don't think mr wicky would want that, nosiree.

It is what it is, Abby.

It would also put Blotchy back in the frame, as he could have felt it unsafe to do the business while Kelly was still singing her bloody heart out ( that pun was truly unintentional!) and met up with her again later.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

bingo
it shows stalking behavior at worst and at best wanting to see mary again, possibly for a hook up and or place to crash. in between it shows an unusual interest in her, perhaps a dab of jealousy.

Speculation of course.

But if Flash Harry only existed in Hutch's vivid imagination, as I think you believe, you still have to explain the 45 minutes, if Kelly was in there alone all that time, just waiting to be relieved of her innards. The longer Hutch spent waiting in the court, to no apparent advantage, the more chance he'd be seen lurking by witnesses other than just Lewis. I think he could have been waiting for Blotchy to emerge, but because he hadn't seen him enter, he only knew Kelly was entertaining someone and being unable to describe that man to the police, he invented a likely suspect cobbled together from the press reports.

If he lied about the whole episode and wasn't even there, again you have to explain why he said he was there for 45 minutes, allowing everyone from Abberline to Abby to speculate about his motives for such a vigil.

In his statement, he seemed more interested in the man than in Kelly, given his copious references to him being flashily attired, which could reflect an ulterior motive to relieve the harmless looking gent from his bling when he emerged, and possibly getting a bed for the rest of the night into the bargain.

Again, it's all speculation, but this makes the most sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hutchinson's attention to detail, I'd suggest, went rather further than most people's would have under such circumstances.

Hi Gareth,

But how does his attention to detail concerning Flash Harry suggest an unusual interest or jealousy, let alone stalking behaviour, in relation to Kelly? I thought your belief was that Hutch made the whole thing up and probably never met the woman.

If you concede he may have known Kelly well enough to become somewhat obsessed by her, do you also concede he could have been there that night, but invented Flash Harry to cover his back, whether he had anything to hide or not? I still have great difficulty in imagining he'd have come forward at all in those circumstances, if he did indeed have one of the worst crimes ever to hide.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

But how does his attention to detail concerning Flash Harry suggest an unusual interest or jealousy, let alone stalking behaviour, in relation to Kelly? I thought your belief was that Hutch made the whole thing up and probably never met the woman.

Indeed it is, Caz. It's either/or as far as I'm concerned; either he made it up completely (which is what I believe), or he was an obsessive with an apparently unhealthy concern about what the object of his obsession was up to. Either way, he cannot be classified as a run-of-the-mill witness.

If you concede he may have known Kelly well enough to become somewhat obsessed by her

I don't believe that he knew her that well, certainly not for three years, and certainly not to have given her a "few shillings" from time to time. I believe he had to come up with the "familiarity" bit as a means to explain his completely OTT interest in what Kelly and Astrakhan got up to. ("Oh, yeah, we were really, really good friends. I've known her since I was 18, and I used to help her out by sharing a fair chunk of my wages with her whenever she was desperate. That's how good a friend I was and that's why I followed her so closely the other night, and made sure I gave the geezer a good once-over.")

[Sam Flynn]

The world is full of people who have exceptional abilities, yet are just everyday folk. I know it, and you know it - so why pretend you don't?

I'm not pretending anything, Jon, and I'm certainly not about to pretend that there's nothing suspicious about Hutchinson's statement; it's hugely suspicous. Its details, and the sheer level of detail it contains, are so self-evidently improbable that I honestly can't see how one could argue to the contrary.

By the way, I bought Stephen Senise's recently-published book Jewbaiter last night, and I'm halfway through it. His exposition of the flaws in Hutchinson's account, to say nothing of the apparent echoes/borrowings from then-current (and not-so-recent) press reports, is quite fascinating. The fact that Senise's book is so very well written is an added bonus. Wholeheartedly recommended.

[Abby Normal]

But does it make him her killer?

no. not necessarily.

[Abby Normal]

Speculation of course.

But if Flash Harry only existed in Hutch's vivid imagination, as I think you believe, you still have to explain the 45 minutes, if Kelly was in there alone all that time, just waiting to be relieved of her innards. The longer Hutch spent waiting in the court, to no apparent advantage, the more chance he'd be seen lurking by witnesses other than just Lewis. I think he could have been waiting for Blotchy to emerge, but because he hadn't seen him enter, he only knew Kelly was entertaining someone and being unable to describe that man to the police, he invented a likely suspect cobbled together from the press reports.

If he lied about the whole episode and wasn't even there, again you have to explain why he said he was there for 45 minutes, allowing everyone from Abberline to Abby to speculate about his motives for such a vigil.

In his statement, he seemed more interested in the man than in Kelly, given his copious references to him being flashily attired, which could reflect an ulterior motive to relieve the harmless looking gent from his bling when he emerged, and possibly getting a bed for the rest of the night into the bargain.

Again, it's all speculation, but this makes the most sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
for me if hutch never saw mary at all and made up the whole thing, then In all likelihood he went to her place looking for a place to crash, maybe a hook up. realized she was already in there with someone and waited around for that person to leave, who was probably Blotchy.

and his amount of attention to Aman IMHO was to convince the police he was a good witness.

[caz]

Indeed it is, Caz. It's either/or as far as I'm concerned; either he made it up completely (which is what I believe), or he was an obsessive with an apparently unhealthy concern about what the object of his obsession was up to. Either way, he cannot be classified as a run-of-the-mill witness.

I don't believe that he knew her that well, certainly not for three years, and certainly not to have given her a "few shillings" from time to time. I believe he had to come up with the "familiarity" bit as a means to explain his completely OTT interest in what Kelly and Astrakhan got up to. ("Oh, yeah, we were really, really good friends. I've known her since I was 18, and I used to help her out by sharing a fair chunk of my wages with her whenever she was desperate. That's how good a friend I was and that's why I followed her so closely the other night, and made sure I gave the geezer a good once-over.")

Cheers, Gareth.

But then, if he did make up the whole thing for attention and/or financial reward, why did he need to go so 'completely OTT' with his interest in what the couple 'got up to' that he also had to claim he knew her well - which has always been like a red hankie to a bull, in terms of arousing police suspicions of involvement? I can understand adding plenty of colour to make the story newsworthy, but not to the extent of having to invent a relationship with the victim.

More to the point, how would you explain his claim to a 45 minute vigil outside the crime scene, if he knew that nobody, including Lewis, could have seen him even for a second, because he was never there? What was that all about? He said he had no qualms about his panto villain at the time, so why not simply say he followed them back to witness the man disappearing into the room after courteously holding the door open for Kelly?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Cheers, Gareth.

But then, if he did make up the whole thing for attention and/or financial reward, why did he need to go so 'completely OTT' with his interest in what the couple 'got up to' that he also had to claim he knew her well - which has always been like a red hankie to a bull, in terms of arousing police suspicions of involvement? I can understand adding plenty of colour to make the story newsworthy, but not to the extent of having to invent a relationship with the victim.

More to the point, how would you explain his claim to a 45 minute vigil outside the crime scene, if he knew that nobody, including Lewis, could have seen him even for a second, because he was never there? What was that all about? He said he had no qualms about his panto villain at the time, so why not simply say he followed them back to witness the man disappearing into the room after courteously holding the door open for Kelly?

Love,

Caz
X

because he was there, whether he saw mary that night or not.

IMHO ithink more likely he did see her, got the blow off, and then shortly returned to her place and waited.