Hutchinsons statement....

[harry]

Hutchinson can only be placed outside Crossingham's about 2.30.When he arrived,or how long he stayed,is open to argument,as is his reasons for being there.There is only his word. What appears to me is that there is so much of an abnormal nature to his story,it would not be wise to accept it at face value.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Re think?

I've always felt that Hutchinson was unreliable due to the description of the man he said that he saw with MJK. After all this was 'the most evil street in London.' A street were the police only entered in pairs. A man in a posh coat with a gold watch chain and a tie pin? Surely, I've always thought, he might as well have worn a coat with 'please mug me, I'm loaded,' written on the back. But...and there's always a but lurking around the corner. I just re-read Hutchinson's statement and I must say that I can see why Abberline felt that it was genuine. It's a pity that Sarah Lewis was never asked if she knew Hutchinson or that she was ever asked to identify him as the man loitering at Crossinghams. It would have removed any doubts. After all, if Hutchinson was making this story up, Lewis could have just seen 'a man' that wasn't Hutchinson. Another point I've considered is: would the chance of reward or that of fifteen minutes of fame have outweighed the possibility of putting himself in the frame by admitting to have been on the spot?
I'm still of the opinion that neither 'astrakhan man,' or Hutchinson was the ripper. AM(if he existed) had been seen and could be identified by Hutchinson as a man entering Millers Court with the victim just before she was murdered. This would have been unbelievably reckless and recklessness is an attribute that we cannot award the Ripper. Hutchinson had been loitering for 45 minutes and would have been known in the area. He also had the chance earlier to take Mary home and murder her but didn't take it. He went to the police (3 days late, admittedly) and gave a statement where the Ripper would surely have kept quiet.
Hutchinson comes across as someone who was fond of Kelly; maybe even to point of being a borderline stalker. He certainly appeared to have an unusual level of interest in her activities. Maybe MJK took advantage of this occasionally to tap him for a few pence. All told Hutchinson doesn't make the grade as a real suspect for me. It goes without saying, therefore, that if Hutchinson was telling the truth then Blotchy is immediately eliminated as the killer.
Regards
HS

[Sam Flynn]

What appears to me is that there is so much of an abnormal nature to his story,it would not be wise to accept it at face value.

I couldn't agree more.

[Flower and Dean]

Why do we even assume that the man Hutchinson described was wealthy? The items he had on him would indicate that he wasn't poor, but we can't be sure of their quality or how he acquired them. He could have been more along the lines of middle-class or so. There were places in the area that could explain someone who wasn't sleep-on-the-rough poor being around.

If he really was wealthy, it sounds rare but not impossible that he'd be around.

You'd think that Hutchinson, if he was lying, would have been better at coming up with a more average-sounding description. Men in less recognisable clothing were a dime-a-dozen in the East End, why not provide a description like that? Abberline was familiar enough with the area and he didn't seem to think it was outside of the realm of possibility.

If I recall correctly, some of the early theories and rumours had to do with "respectable" men.

All of this makes me think that it's not really as implausible as we all think and that maybe this man wasn't princely-levels wealthy as we tend to assume. Even accounting for things like Abberline possibly being desperate to solve the case and the nature of rumours, I'd trust people who were there at the time to have a sense of what it was like better than I do.

I think that if Hutchinson was the killer, it's more plausible to me that he either saw a man like this and was trying to put the blame on him, or that he knew that description would be a mix of specific and believable enough to throw everyone off his scent.

As has been argued many times a client or friend can setup an appointment,even double the amount to be paid,and kill Kelly with no Oh Murder.The unfortunate,if alone, can save roaming around the street at early mornings.The man seen by Sarah Lewis was an intruder and had no reason to come forward - he was also seen before killing Eddowes, Chapman.

Which man?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A lesson in preconceptions.

Hi: firstly I'd echo the 'which man?' question.

As I mentioned earlier I've always been suspicious that this well-to-do-gent never existed but I re read the statement and can see why Abberline felt it was genuine. Flower and Dean you are absolutely right about this. I think that I've been 'infected' by the Stephen Knight scenario. This guy could have been just a bit better off than everyone else. The coat could have been second hand or even a bit moth-eaten; it was dark after all. Maybe the watch was a cheap second hand one or a family heirloom worn on special occasions.
A lesson in preconceptions!
I still feel sure that this guy wasn't the Ripper for the reasons that I stated earlier but he might not have been a figment of Hutchinsons imagination after all.
Cheers
HS

[Wickerman]

I've always felt that Hutchinson was unreliable due to the description of the man he said that he saw with MJK. After all this was 'the most evil street in London.' A street were the police only entered in pairs. A man in a posh coat with a gold watch chain and a tie pin? Surely, I've always thought, he might as well have worn a coat with 'please mug me, I'm loaded,' written on the back.

Hi H.S.
There's two things here, in your paragraph above.
The police didn't always patrol in pairs, in fact I'm not so sure we have any contemporary records to confirm that old chestnut at all.

In the East End, if and when the police patrolled in pairs it wasn't because the area was unsafe, it was because they were 'police'. Constables did get attacked and abused often. I'm sure I read somewhere that police wouldn't enter a premises in pursuit of a villain by themselves, but that is a different argument.
Do you recall Mary Ann Cox's statement at the inquest?
She agreed the footsteps she heard pacing up and down the court might have been a policeman - not a pair of policemen.
So, dismissing Hutchinson's story because of a belief that simply has no foundation in fact is only going to lead you down the wrong path.

The second point concerns this other false idea that 'fancy' dressed men wouldn't walk around the neighborhood.
I did a search in newspaper accounts of men being mugged in and around this part of town (watch thefts, etc.). I hope you will agree that men have to be there, doing what you say they wouldn't do, in order to get mugged, and get mugged they did.

There's another account of a 'Lady' who while being driven in her carriage (I think it was in Brushfield Street), was also mugged by some youth who jumped up on the step and reached in and grabbed her brooch (or something like that).
Lots of semi-wealthy people, Tailors, furniture manufacturers, business owners, etc. lived in the area and of course they come and go as they please.
This common argument "no-one would do that" has been attached to a number of activities, but as is often the case the "no-one would do that" argument often stems from ignorance.
It's a false argument.

I spent the best part of a year researching a well-known character named Joseph Isaacs. He lived in Paternoster Row (just down Dorset St.), and he wore an imitation gold watch chain, and dressed up like a toff. He was arrested once for impersonating a detective (but he had no warrant card). Another time impersonating a musician (but he couldn't play the instrument).
He was a confidence trickster, I traced him from Dover to various places in Yorkshire, even up to Edinburgh.
He traveled up and down the country posing as different people in order to con money out of his victims. He dressed the part, yet he lived in Paternoster Row, just off Dorset Street.

I'm sorry, but the whole basis for this line of argument is false.

[Wickerman]

Why do we even assume that the man Hutchinson described was wealthy? The items he had on him would indicate that he wasn't poor, but we can't be sure of their quality or how he acquired them.

Precisely, a top-hat is a top-hat, we have lots of contemporary photo's of destitute-looking men, basically dressed in rags, in some cases in bare feet, but wearing a top-hat, it is well-worn and moth-eaten, but it's a top-hat.
Hutchinson makes no effort to describe the condition of Astrachan's clothes, whether they were clean, worn, grubby, or held together with cotton thread.

The critics always assume Astrachan was a "Toff", again, without foundation.
(It's a straw-man argument, set the bar too high then knock it down with common sense)

[Wickerman]

Hi: firstly I'd echo the 'which man?' question.

As I mentioned earlier I've always been suspicious that this well-to-do-gent never existed but I re read the statement and can see why Abberline felt it was genuine. Flower and Dean you are absolutely right about this. I think that I've been 'infected' by the Stephen Knight scenario. This guy could have been just a bit better off than everyone else. The coat could have been second hand or even a bit moth-eaten; it was dark after all. Maybe the watch was a cheap second hand one or a family heirloom worn on special occasions.
A lesson in preconceptions!
I still feel sure that this guy wasn't the Ripper for the reasons that I stated earlier but he might not have been a figment of Hutchinsons imagination after all.
Cheers
HS

Well done that man!


Hutchinson threads are the most common here on Casebook, and most of the criticisms against Hutchinson are based on preconceptions.
I'm glad you've taken a step back.... perhaps to take a second look at the situation?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Wickerman.

I have, in my last post, admitted to having preconceptions and that I've been guilty of seeing 'astrakhan man,' as a real toff when he could easily fit the description of someone slightly better off than the average Whitechapel man. I accept too that the idea that policeman only entered Dorset Street in pairs was just something I read years ago. But surely there's no doubt that someone 'looking' better off would be taking a risk strolling around Dorset Dtreet in the wee small hours. Not, of course, does that mean that someone wouldn't be prepared to take that risk.
I do try to look at both sides but sometimes we/I am guilty of not examining preconceptions enough. Again, I do try though.
But.... I still do not see either Astrakhan Man or Hutchinson as serious suspects.
Regards
HS

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, you slipped in another post there.

Cheers
HS

[harry]

Remember it was Hutchinson himself who commented on the appearance of Aman,and gave that as a reason for his(Hutchinson's) interest in the person.
It was Hutchinson,not posters of today,who stated a person of such well dressed appearance was unusual in being on the strees at that time.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson said he was surprised to see such a "well dressed man in her company".
Nothing about "in the streets at that time", that is added by posters today.

[harry]

In her company, or in the district,or in the street,it w as the well dressed appearance that Hutchinson was refeering to. Where else were they but in the street.If you mean it was unusual for her to be in the company of well dressed males,it seems that at that time, in that place, there was no alternative.

[harry]

I forgot.Hutchinson states Kelly was alone when he first saw her,not in the company of anyone.

[The Good Michael]

The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing, my preferred reading, though they are all the same as there is no hidden meaning...none.

Mike