Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Wickerman]

Victorian Miner's Hobnail Boots...


https://victoriancollections.net.au/...cdd1172c081d39

.......the nails are embedded deeper in the leather, or the head is worn away.

The head is worn away Michael, which is why this exchange is part of the inquest record...
[Coroner] Then you think that his boots were down at heels ?
[Cox] He made no noise.

Don't you remember that the police fastened strips of rubber to the sole of their boots so they would make no noise?
Why do you think that is Michael?

[Robert St Devil]

I wasn't asking to prove you wrong, Jon, I was simply asking. For some reason, you zeroed in on my 2nd question, one that I would have left out of my post except I read your post #4, The Star hits the streets at 4 or 5 pm on the 12th with a description of Cox's suspect. I noticed the only similarity between their suspects is the man walked softly. I'm not pro or anti Hutch, just trying to determine if he's telling the truth.

If he is telling the truth, then we have two witnesses who noticed the man accompanying Mary walked softly, and I wondered how commonplace it would have been for Mary to have met two men with these type shoes within a few hours considering most of the debates on the forum usually come back to everyone wearing heavy clodded footwear during this period. Hell, maybe it's the same guy, maybe Cox is a liar, &c.

I don't personally feel like Hutch had anything to do with her murder or being Jack the Ripper. No other prior sighting made Jack come forward (unless you blv the Cross theory), so I don't think Lewis' vague description of a man wearing a hat would have compelled him to seek out and deceive the police.

[Wickerman]

Hi Robert.

My apologies, on reflection it might be fair to admit I unjustly focused on that one question of yours.

It's just that we've been down that road before, the time of Hutch's sighting at "two o'clock", a "respectably dressed man", who "approached the victim", plus a few other minor details can be read in the Saturday press. Which convinced one member that she had solved the problem - Hutchinson compiled his story from bits & pieces he gleaned from the Saturday press.

A right load of codswallop, to put it bluntly. Your remark just struck a cord, if you get what I mean.
Sorry about that.

[Sam Flynn]

"Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, who's description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid."
Echo, 14 Nov. 1888.

Corroboration exists for parts of Hutchinson's story.

Does Bowyer's description survive? He could have been describing Blotchy for all I know.

[Wickerman]

The "supposed murderer", following Hutchinson's appearance at Commercial st. on the 12th was Astrachan, as widely published in the press on the 13th & 14th.

Bowyer's story appeared on the 14th, his account also mentioned "three o'clock" several times, as the time of his sighting. And, that if he had realized this was the killer "I reckon he wouldn't have got off", which if taken as a euphemism must imply Bowyer would have done him over, so to speak.

There are two separate accounts of Bowyer saying he last saw Kelly on Wednesday, one at the inquest, one in the press. Which suggests he didn't see Kelly with this man at 3:00 on Friday morning, it was just the man by himself. Which in turn must imply this man was leaving the court, as Kelly was seen accompanying both her clients (Blotchy & Astrachan) as they arrived that night. But Bowyer saw this man alone - so the man was leaving.

Not only was Blotchy not the "supposed murderer" as described by the press on the 13th & 14th, having him leave at 3:00 after arriving about 11:45 is far too long a time.
Whereas, according to Hutchinson his suspect only arrived shortly after 2:00, which makes Astrachan the most likely person seen by Bowyer, as Astrachan was indisputably the "supposed murderer" as widely assumed on the day this report was published in the press.

[Abby Normal]

The "supposed murderer", following Hutchinson's appearance at Commercial st. on the 12th was Astrachan, as widely published in the press on the 13th & 14th.

Bowyer's story appeared on the 14th, his account also mentioned "three o'clock" several times, as the time of his sighting. And, that if he had realized this was the killer "I reckon he wouldn't have got off", which if taken as a euphemism must imply Bowyer would have done him over, so to speak.

There are two separate accounts of Bowyer saying he last saw Kelly on Wednesday, one at the inquest, one in the press. Which suggests he didn't see Kelly with this man at 3:00 on Friday morning, it was just the man by himself. Which in turn must imply this man was leaving the court, as Kelly was seen accompanying both her clients (Blotchy & Astrachan) as they arrived that night. But Bowyer saw this man alone - so the man was leaving.

Not only was Blotchy not the "supposed murderer" as described by the press on the 13th & 14th, having him leave at 3:00 after arriving about 11:45 is far too long a time.
Whereas, according to Hutchinson his suspect only arrived shortly after 2:00, which makes Astrachan the most likely person seen by Bowyer, as Astrachan was indisputably the "supposed murderer" as widely assumed on the day this report was published in the press.

Do you do magic tricks too?

[Abby Normal]

"And, if you can think of this then why couldn't anyone else, like a detective?"

Nice one, Wick. One of the best comments ever on a Hutchinson thread (or any other thread for that matter). Pretty much puts the whole Hutch thing in perspective.

c.d.

Your easily impressed.

[Wickerman]

Do you do magic tricks too?

Ever think before you speak?

[Abby Normal]

Ever think before you speak?

Yup. And you obviously think too much before you do

[Joshua Rogan]

Jon, I don't suppose you have a link to Bowyer's report of seeing the man, do you? Seems a bit fishy that he not only discovered the body but placed himself at the scene around the time of death, too. Why isn't he suspect no.1?

[c.d.]

Your easily impressed.

Easily impressed? I'm not so sure. But I was impressed that Wickerman was able to cut through the essentially uncountable layers of Hutchinson nonsense to get to the bottom line. Sometimes it is important to state the obvious. The paradox of Hutchinson is that if it is so apparently obvious to people on these boards that Hutchinson engaged in highly suspicious activities then it is a reasonable assumption that the police at the time would have been of the same mind and acted accordingly. Unless they were complete and total idiots and completely incompetent.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Jon, I don't suppose you have a link to Bowyer's report of seeing the man, do you? Seems a bit fishy that he not only discovered the body but placed himself at the scene around the time of death, too. Why isn't he suspect no.1?

Jr
Debra Arif found the article a couple of years ago that Bowyer said, quoted, no less, that he was in the court in the middle of the night. He didn’t see any man at that time and said he was sorry he didn’t because he missed the chance to catch the ripper.

I asked the same thing you just did about bowyer, and still think he’s fishy. At the time she posted it I was surprised that there was so little interest by casebookers.

Wicks, as usual, with the other press reports of Boyer saying he saw a peculiar man a day or so earlier in the court, is trying to twist it into his legendarium with his well dressed man suspect at the center.

[Abby Normal]

Easily impressed? I'm not so sure. But I was impressed that Wickerman was able to cut through the essentially uncountable layers of Hutchinson nonsense to get to the bottom line. Sometimes it is important to state the obvious. The paradox of Hutchinson is that if it is so apparently obvious to people on these boards that Hutchinson engaged in highly suspicious activities then it is a reasonable assumption that the police at the time would have been of the same mind and acted accordingly. Unless they were complete and total idiots and completely incompetent.

c.d.

Ok. So cutting through the “uncountable layers of Hutchinson nonsense to get to the bottom line” is what then? And how did the police act accordingly?

[Joshua Rogan]

Jr
Debra Arif found the article a couple of years ago that Bowyer said, quoted, no less, that he was in the court in the middle of the night. He didn’t see any man at that time and said he was sorry he didn’t because he missed the chance to catch the ripper.

I asked the same thing you just did about bowyer, and still think he’s fishy. At the time she posted it I was surprised that there was so little interest by casebookers.

Wicks, as usual, with the other press reports of Boyer saying he saw a peculiar man a day or so earlier in the court, is trying to twist it into his legendarium with his well dressed man suspect at the center.

Cheers Abby. Sounds similar to the remarks of George Morris, the Kearley & Tonge's watchman;
"It was only on that night that he remarked to some policeman that he wished the "butcher" would come round Mitre square, and he would give him a doing; yet the "butcher" had come, and he was perfectly ignorant of it"

Still, it's odd that the press reports from the Echo on this site stop at 13th Nov... seems almost like a bit of a cover-up.

[Sam Flynn]

if it is so apparently obvious to people on these boards that Hutchinson engaged in highly suspicious activities then it is a reasonable assumption that the police at the time would have been of the same mind and acted accordingly. Unless they were complete and total idiots and completely incompetent.

No matter how competent the police were, it doesn't preclude the idea that Hutchinson succeeded in hoodwinking them. He won't have been the first bogus witness to have done so, nor the last.