Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

It doesn't explain why Diemschutz, Kozebrodsky and Mortimer, who were there, and the first two actually saw Blackwell open Strides hands, all mention grapes? I need to check the Robinson book because I'm sure that he mentioned 8 or 9 people who all mentioned grapes.

Most, if not all, initially reported in the same newspaper or group of newspapers (Daily and/or Evening News), in which Stride is reported to have held grapes in one hand and sweets in the other - which is faintly absurd. It could well be a red herring based on mis-hearings, mistranslations (not all the witnesses were fluent English speakers) or "Chinese whispers" - the latter possibly started by Matthew Packer himself, who sold fruit from his house right next to the Berner Streeet club.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Most, if not all, initially reported in the same newspaper or group of newspapers (Daily and/or Evening News), in which Stride is reported to have held grapes in one hand and sweets in the other - which is faintly absurd. It could well be a red herring based on mis-hearings, mistranslations (not all the witnesses were fluent English speakers) or "Chinese whispers" - the latter possibly started by Matthew Packer himself, who sold fruit from his house right next to the Berner Streeet club.

That's the likeliest explaination,Sam. I always carry a sackful of 'buts' around with me though. And so...but we would need to be sure of when Diemschutz' first mention of grapes was because it appears that the first mention of a Packer/grapes connection was on the second. I just had a quick look while I was typing but when I do that, for some reason, I always end up having to log back in?
I really want to make time to have a bit of a look at this. Just to check times and statements. Your interpretation is the most logical but Robinson ( who, lets face it, has a suspect and a Masonic Cover-up. But it still doesn't automatically make him wrong) if I recall correctly reels off a list of names of witnesses who mention grapes. He asks why all those that mentioned grapes were excluded from the inquest (except for Diemschutz of course who couldn't be excluded) I think that he also claims that White's first interview with Packer never took place!
Why would Packer give different statements? a) did he see a chance of a bit of fame (even extra trade) b) did he sense a reward c) did he first, not want to get involved, but then felt it his duty to speak. d) something shady concerning 'the two detectives) e) was the first Packer substituted for a shape-shifting alien? Ok we can perhaps discard the last one. Only perhaps though.
Regards
HS

[Bridewell]

With the disclaimer that I don't know anything about his personality and assuming he was telling the truth, I wonder if he thought he could get some money out of this man. If he thought of the man as a mark, that could explain why he'd keep such a close watch on him and noticed so many details. It would explain why he took so long to talk to the cops, too.

Heavens above! Someone agrees with me! (There's a first time for everything).

[Abby Normal]

Heavens above! Someone agrees with me! (There's a first time for everything).

possibly, but I doubt. reading between the lines, his actions seem focused squarely on Mary.

after the fact if hes trying to gain personally from being a good witness, hes of course going to focus on the "suspect".

[Bridewell]

Hi.
We have only one person who has identified himself as George Hutchinson since 1888, and that is Topping.His son identified him in the publication ''The Ripper and the Royals [ early 90's] and yours truly heard the same tale from someone claiming to be his son in the early-mid 70's [ on radio].
I have always maintained the radio broadcast was authentic, and nothing will change my mind.I heard it with my own ears, long before I had hearing aids.
If Topping was Hutchinson the witness, I believe he was being totally honest, and observant.
He allegedly informed his son, and others, ''That is a regret, that despite efforts , nothing came of it'' But he was paid the sum of Five pounds, for services rendered.
This was confirmed in 1888, in the Wheeling publication.[ a rare account]
Surely only the real witness would have known that money was paid, and the amount.?
Topping had two sons, and both have mentioned in the past of the account of their father exploits.
I have no reason to doubt.
The only concern should be ''Did this stranger kill Kelly''? and not ''Did he exist''.?
Regards Richard.

I'm pretty sure Topping was Hutchinson too. The signatures are remarkably similar. In addition, one of the signatures on the Hutchinson statement looks to include an 'H' which started life as a 'T'. In other words (only my surmise) Hutchinson nearly signed as George T Hutchinson or George Topping Hutchinson but had second thoughts and opted for brevity.

(I can post images if anyone wishes, but it may take a while as I'll need to rummage!).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Grapes: Food for thought or not?

I've been looking at the saga of the grapes again. Checking who said that they saw them and who didn't. Are they worth reconsidering and, likewise, is Matthew Packer worth a re-think? Into grape land we go.
On page 141 of his 'I Caught Crippen,' Walter Dew said that detectives had found grape skins and stalks. This was written long after events but he was a police officer at the time. In The Telegraph it was stated that PC Lamb had said that Stride was clutching grapes yet he didn't mention this at the inquest. Louis Diemschutz, who The Evening Mail described as ' a man of more intelligence than is usually found amongst men of his class,' (patronising, I know), was actually there when the doctor opened Stride's hands and he saw grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other. Isaac Kozebrodsky who was there at the same time saw grapes and sweets. Kozebrodsky wasn't called to the inquest but Diemschutz was and, while he doesn't mention grapes, the line of questioning seems to me to just cover the time up to and around the discovery of the body and not when the doctor opened her hands, which is when he said that he'd seen the grapes. Local woman Fanny Mortimer mentions grapes but her testimony can read as though she was relaying what was seen rather than what she herself saw. A Mrs Rosenfield and a Miss Hartstein both mention seeing grapes. Little appears to be known about them but someone on a JTRForum thread found that a Hartstein family lived in Dutfields Yard in 1891. Neither Blackwell, Johnston or Bagster Phillips mention grapes at the inquest but BP mentions a fruit-stained handkerchief (you have to wonder how many east end prostitutes could afford to spend cash on fruit?). He also said that she's swallowed neither 'seed or skin' of grapes. Why not just say grapes? Bruce Robinson suggests, not unreasonably to my mind, that Stride may have spat out the seed and skin. Things get stranger when we find someone selling grapes 2 doors away.
Packer was interviewed by Serjeant Wright at 9am and said that he'd seen and heard nothing. A day later Inspector Moore was sent to take Packer to the mortuary but he bumped into one of the mysterious detectives. Why would they want him to identify a body when he'd told them he'd seen nothing? Then we find Packer's second statement ( mentioning the grapes and the man seen with Stride) mentioned in writing by (Senior) Assistant Commissioner Alexander Carmichael Bruce. Isn't it possible that Packer's first statement, taken just after a horrible murder 2 doors away, and one where he may have seen the murderer, was just an ' I don't want to get involved?' When questioned again maybe he had an attack of conscience, or he smelled a reward or he though that a bit of infamy might bring a bit of extra trade?
I've got no definate conclusion here. Who is correct and who is mistaken? Or perhaps, who is lying and who is telling the truth?
Food for though?
Regards
HS

[Bridewell]

possibly, but I doubt. reading between the lines, his actions seem focused squarely on Mary.

after the fact if hes trying to gain personally from being a good witness, hes of course going to focus on the "suspect".

Hutchinson provides a very detailed description of MJK's client. It is this very detail which is often advanced to support a claim that he made the description up (and perhaps he did). IMHO either he did make it up or his focus was very much on the client rather than MJK because I can't see how he could have seen what he claims to have seen whilst focusing on MJK herself.

[Flower and Dean]

If Hutchinson simply invented Astrakhan Man, would the benefits from this invention; a possible reward or a bit of fame, outweigh the negative i.e. Putting yourself right on the spot of an horrendous murder. A murder of someone that he knew and outside who's address you had been loitering for 45 minutes? Add these to the fact that he could have easily have been spotted talking to MJK shortly before her death.

Food for thought indeed!

I'd never thought about it this way until you brought it up. That people would make up a false testimony for fame and profit doesn't surprise me, but it's good to ask why Hutchinson would come up with this specific story (assuming he was mentally healthing and not delusional or anything).

Someone brought up Packer's testimony as an example of people probably making things up. But what about Packer as an example of Unreliable Testimony Done "Right"? Packer's story gives him a solid reason for interacting with the victim and the unknown man in her company -- he was doing his job and selling his wares. It puts him at a safe distance away from the crime scene. Before the variations and the grape debate, his story by itself sounds plausible and solid.

Compare this to Hutchinson's story. It has him following Mary and the stranger around (and being curious about the stranger) for reasons that aren't very solid, enough that we're discussing what was going on. It puts him very close to the crime scene that night, not only in passing, but actively sticking around for some time. It very clearly connects him to the victim as someone he knew.

It seems like to me like Hutchinson's story, if made up, would be far riskier than Packer's. You're right that it could have backfired on him. At the very least, it sounds much more likely to be a story that authorities would have wanted to look into. As desperate as he may have been, he could just have come up with a better story with less odd reasons for his actions.

Of course, maybe he figured keepings things vague could help or just wasn't very good at making things up. It's just that the type of testimony he gave, now that you bring it up, sounds weirder than what you'd expect from a made up story.

possibly, but I doubt. reading between the lines, his actions seem focused squarely on Mary.

I don't know about that. His testimony reads as focused on Mary only in the sense that it was given in an investigation about her murder. He mentions the last time he interacted with her and finding it weird that she was in this man's company, but he otherwise focuses a lot more on describing this man. Even the whole reason he gives for following them is less about wanting to interact with her or anything along those lines and more about noticing this man's presence and being intrigued by him.

At most, I can only read it as focused on Mary in the sense of him being protective, jealous, etc. but still with the other man as a central part of his story.

Either way, the guess that he could have had shady intentions towards this man doesn't really depend on the focus of his testimony. I brought this up because of the amount of detail he gives about the man's clothes and other strange aspects of his claims.

Heavens above! Someone agrees with me! (There's a first time for everything).

Ah, I'm glad we're not alone, then!

[Bridewell]

I'm pretty sure Topping was Hutchinson too. The signatures are remarkably similar. In addition, one of the signatures on the Hutchinson statement looks to include an 'H' which started life as a 'T'. In other words (only my surmise) Hutchinson nearly signed as George T Hutchinson or George Topping Hutchinson but had second thoughts and opted for brevity.

(I can post images if anyone wishes, but it may take a while as I'll need to rummage!).

The first three are the three signatures on the Hutchinson Statement/Report. The last is one I lifted several years ago from the 1911 census. It is the first signature which includes what I suggest may be a 'T' converted to an 'H'. I see it as the likely explanation for that signature only having that strange flourish on the capital 'H'.

[Flower and Dean]

The first three are the three signatures on the Hutchinson Statement/Report. The last is one I lifted several years ago from the 1911 census. It is the first signature which includes what I suggest may be a 'T' converted to an 'H'. I see it as the likely explanation for that signature only having that strange flourish on the capital 'H'.

To me it just looks like an old-fashioned way of writing a cursive 'H'. You could similarly claim that he was almost writing a J...

Seriously, though, that's very similar to how I've seen older people write the letter 'H' and the way I draw it too when I'm trying to make my handwriting look extra fancy and nice. The stroke on the side of the H isn't supposed to be the stroke on a T, just an embelleshiment and a way of starting the letter.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm pretty sure Topping was Hutchinson too. The signatures are remarkably similar. In addition, one of the signatures on the Hutchinson statement looks to include an 'H' which started life as a 'T'. In other words (only my surmise) Hutchinson nearly signed as George T Hutchinson or George Topping Hutchinson but had second thoughts and opted for brevity.

(I can post images if anyone wishes, but it may take a while as I'll need to rummage!).

Totally agree, Bridwell. I came up with comparative montages of the signatures in 2009, for example:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=67951&postcount=37

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=68512&postcount=72

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=68516&postcount=73

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=107361&postcount=495

[Sam Flynn]

To me it just looks like an old-fashioned way of writing a cursive 'H'.

It's more than just the "H", though - see the links in my post above.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hunting H.

Thanks for posting the signatures Sam; very interesting. I know next to nothing about signatures except that a persons signature can change (even if only slightly) This could be a conscious decision to 'neaten up,' or it could vary due to the circumstances and the haste in which they were written. I'm sure that an expert would tell us that a signature written in anger could differ from a happy one.
My only observations on the signatures that you posted are that the two 'Toppy' ones differ from the 3 witness statement ones in the H's. The capitals in the 'Toppy's' have horizontal cross bars. While the lower case 'Toppy's' aren't looped as the WS ones are.
These to me are minor things though and I'm sure that you have the right Hutchinson.
Regards
HS

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for posting the signatures Sam; very interesting. I know next to nothing about signatures except that a persons signature can change

The good thing is that Hutchinson's signature changed very, very little over a span of 23 years.

These to me are minor things though and I'm sure that you have the right Hutchinson.

Cheers, HS!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Food for thought indeed!

I'd never thought about it this way until you brought it up. That people would make up a false testimony for fame and profit doesn't surprise me, but it's good to ask why Hutchinson would come up with this specific story (assuming he was mentally healthing and not delusional or anything).

Someone brought up Packer's testimony as an example of people probably making things up. But what about Packer as an example of Unreliable Testimony Done "Right"? Packer's story gives him a solid reason for interacting with the victim and the unknown man in her company -- he was doing his job and selling his wares. It puts him at a safe distance away from the crime scene. Before the variations and the grape debate, his story by itself sounds plausible and solid.

Compare this to Hutchinson's story. It has him following Mary and the stranger around (and being curious about the stranger) for reasons that aren't very solid, enough that we're discussing what was going on. It puts him very close to the crime scene that night, not only in passing, but actively sticking around for some time. It very clearly connects him to the victim as someone he knew.

It seems like to me like Hutchinson's story, if made up, would be far riskier than Packer's. You're right that it could have backfired on him. At the very least, it sounds much more likely to be a story that authorities would have wanted to look into. As desperate as he may have been, he could just have come up with a better story with less odd reasons for his actions.

Of course, maybe he figured keepings things vague could help or just wasn't very good at making things up. It's just that the type of testimony he gave, now that you bring it up, sounds weirder than what you'd expect from a made up story.



I don't know about that. His testimony reads as focused on Mary only in the sense that it was given in an investigation about her murder. He mentions the last time he interacted with her and finding it weird that she was in this man's company, but he otherwise focuses a lot more on describing this man. Even the whole reason he gives for following them is less about wanting to interact with her or anything along those lines and more about noticing this man's presence and being intrigued by him.

At most, I can only read it as focused on Mary in the sense of him being protective, jealous, etc. but still with the other man as a central part of his story.

Either way, the guess that he could have had shady intentions towards this man doesn't really depend on the focus of his testimony. I brought this up because of the amount of detail he gives about the man's clothes and other strange aspects of his claims.



Ah, I'm glad we're not alone, then!

I think it shows how easy it is to make up your mind about something and then not revisit it assuming that you have sussed it, which is what I'd always done with Hutchinson. That's why I looked at the grape story and Packer again. Most people just assume that his testimony can't be trusted. Maybe he wasn't being truthful but....he made 2 statements, if he lied why is the 1st one true but not the 2nd? Why not the other way around? As I said earlier maybe, just maybe that in his first statement he just didn't want to get involved. Then, for whatever motive he changed his mind.
Regards
HS