Possible reason for Hutch coming forward

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon

Whether Hutchinson was telling the truth or not, Mr Astrakhan was certainly "good copy". That being the case, why would the Star - more commercially aware than most papers - publish a story about Hutchinson's description being discredited* if there wasn't some truth behind it?


* albeit discredited by "some" authorities, it seems.

I think the truth behind this issue is more involved than the treatment we are giving it.
To start with, over the weekend it seemed the murder had been committed late Friday morning - so Maxwell was the prime witness, at least according to the press. No identifiable suspect.

Following the inquest, Hutchinson came forward. The police issued a suspect description on the morning of the 13th based on his sighting. It was big news in the morning press.
However, by the evening, the Echo were reporting that the authorities are now divided between two suspects - Astrachan & Blotchy.
They wrote:
"From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation...etc."
They were talking about Hutchinson's story.

I think the Star took this story by the Echo and hyped it up (on the 15th) by implying that the police must have found something wrong with Hutch's story.
Why?, they don't say.
The spin they put on the story was to say Hutchinson had been discredited.
Why else would the police be considering another suspect?

Well, the police were not considering another suspect to replace Astrachan, the truth was they had a second suspect on their list, that's all.

In the background of course is the fact the police had Dr Bond's estimated time of death for Kelly. Which the press knew nothing about, but which likely was the cause the police decided to pursue the Cox suspect alongside the Hutchinson's suspect - just in case.
This is what we see in the press later in the week.

So the one prime suspect on the morning of the 13th, had been diluted into two equally important suspects by the evening.
I think this is what was behind the Star's dismissal of Hutchinson. but, as we can see, it was not true.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jon

Whether Hutchinson was telling the truth or not, Mr Astrakhan was certainly "good copy". That being the case, why would the Star - more commercially aware than most papers - publish a story about Hutchinson's description being discredited* if there wasn't some truth behind it?


* albeit discredited by "some" authorities, it seems.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

The man looked sufficiently like Cox's description of Mr. Blotchy for Mr. Galloway to report him to the police.

However, the police stated that the man was "acting in concert" with the police.

Hello Simon.
I don't remember anyone offering a rationale interpretation of what "acting in concert" was supposed to mean. It sounds to me like a clumsy way of saying the man was re-enacting something to maybe jog peoples memory of an incident. Police have been known to do this today. Except the locations mentioned have no bearing on Cox's testimony.
That said, we have a tendency to always think the police only knew what we know today. The reality is likely that the police knew considerably more than we do today.
So, was this character re-enacting the movements of the Blotchy suspect on the night of the murder?
It is quite possible the police learned more about Blotchy after their exhaustive enquiries and were trying to see if any people remember seeing this man.
I could be wrong, I just can't think of anything else to explain Galloway's account.

How do you know that the press story which allegedly showed the Star to be wrong was not in itself wrong?

Yes, of course.
What I am getting at is, the Star account is singular, there is nothing else by any other newspaper that lends support for their story. And, the Star have been known to hype-up a story, or exaggerate an incident, just to sell copy.
The Star had a reputation for meddling with the truth.
It's not like the Star is a reputable newspaper, not in the same league as the Times, Morning Post, Standard, Daily Telegraph, etc.

In contrast to that Star article, we have the Evening News (on 16th), and the Echo (on 19th) both telling very different stories which contest what the Star wrote.
The Galloway story (Evening News) is totally unrelated to the 'Authorities being divided' story published by the Echo. Yet both stories make the same statement, that the police were still pursuing the Astrachan suspect.
Which means we can use our common sense in that two unrelated newspaper stories say one thing, while a somewhat dubious newspaper says the opposite.
Which is likely to be the more reliable?

I have not even mentioned the fact that the Star ALSO published the Galloway story the very next day after they just wrote that Hutchinson had been discredited!!! What a JOKE!
Really, first they say he is discredited, then they say the police are looking for a "man of a very different appearance" - the implication is certainly towards the Astrachan suspect without actually saying so.

On December 6th Abberline was allegedly overheard by an anonymous informant to say, "Keep this quiet—we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing."

Leaving aside that this was merely hearsay, what leads you to believe that Abberline was talking about JtR?

The police interest in Isaacs began on the weekend after the murder. They conducted a house-to-house search in Dorset St. & adjacent streets. One landlady in Paternoster Court said her 'weird' lodger went missing on the morning of the murder, and he was a Jew who was known to 'dress up'. The police had been looking for him ever since.
The press said that Isaacs "answered the published description of a man with the Astrachan trimming to his coat."

Joseph Isaacs stole a gold watch. Could you please cite your sources regarding his wearing of an Astrakhan coat and a fake gold watch chain.

He was arrested at Dover posing as a Detective.....
When searched, the Prisoner was found to be wearing a sham medal on his breast and an imitation gold chain, but no watch.
Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, 30 July, 1887.

It turned out that Isaacs couldn't have been Astrachan, but he resembled the published description, even to the detail of being seen wearing a gold watch chain.
It just goes to show that the published description was not 'fanciful' or 'fictional' - it was real.
I know this doesn't go down too well with many theorists, but some facts never do.

[Wickerman]

So he could have been living somewhere else while the other murders took place? I'm trying to remember why I too had thought that he had lived somewhere else?? Do you know of any other article giving a different address for Hutch outside of Whitechapel at any point in time (besides Senise's book which I'm assuming places him in Australia much later on)? I was thinking that I had read about his Romford trip and I had maybe assumed that he had been living there which was why I never bothered to look any closer at Hutch. Which in hindsight now looks like a mistake on my part, by brushing past every time his name was mentioned. Oh well, better late than never I guess

Sorry, I can't help you with that. I don't recall any other address associated with Hutchinson.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

The man looked sufficiently like Cox's description of Mr. Blotchy for Mr. Galloway to report him to the police.

However, the police stated that the man was "acting in concert" with the police.

How do you know that the press story which allegedly showed the Star to be wrong was not in itself wrong?

On December 6th Abberline was allegedly overheard by an anonymous informant to say, "Keep this quiet—we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing."

Leaving aside that this was merely hearsay, what leads you to believe that Abberline was talking about JtR?

Joseph Isaacs stole a gold watch. Could you please cite your sources regarding his wearing of an Astrakhan coat and a fake gold watch chain.

Regards,

Simon

[RedBundy13]

So again, he had to be living somewhere else.
I'm sure it was still somewhere in Whitechapel, it just wasn't at the Victoria Home.

So he could have been living somewhere else while the other murders took place? I'm trying to remember why I too had thought that he had lived somewhere else?? Do you know of any other article giving a different address for Hutch outside of Whitechapel at any point in time (besides Senise's book which I'm assuming places him in Australia much later on)? I was thinking that I had read about his Romford trip and I had maybe assumed that he had been living there which was why I never bothered to look any closer at Hutch. Which in hindsight now looks like a mistake on my part, by brushing past every time his name was mentioned. Oh well, better late than never I guess

[Wickerman]

..... I don't know why I had always thought before that he was living somewhere outside of Whitechapel?? but in reality he was living right smack dab in the heart of Ripper territory!.....

Not quite.

We do not know where he was living before he walked into Commercial St. on Monday 12th Nov.
That is where he gave his address at the Victoria Home.

He also gave an interview to a Central News reporter at the Victoria Home on the 13th. In fact he tells us that one of the other lodgers "here" suggested he should go to the police about what he saw. This is how we know the interview took place at the Victoria Home. So, "here" means the Victoria Home, that's clear enough.

Yet, he also tells the reporter that on the night of the murder "the place I usually sleep was closed". He didn't say "here, was closed", or "this place was closed".
Which means Hutchinson was staying somewhere else up until the night of the murder. Therefore, we do not know where he usually slept prior to him taking up lodgings at the Victoria Home.

Besides, the Victoria Home did not close over night, lodgers who knew they might be late back after closing time (after a day trip to Romford?) were given a pass card so they would be let in. Hutchinson could have still gained entry if he was at the Vic. after leaving Millers Court. So again, he had to be living somewhere else.
I'm sure it was still somewhere in Whitechapel, it just wasn't at the Victoria Home.

[RedBundy13]

Thanks Sam

Thanks Sam! I thought it most likely was but now Im sure, much appreciated. Wow, I've never really given Hutch much thought about being a possible JTR suspect besides the strange, unbelievably detailed description he gave of A-Man. I don't know why I had always thought before that he was living somewhere outside of Whitechapel?? but in reality he was living right smack dab in the heart of Ripper territory! Which of course so was 10,000 other people at that time and on the surface it doesn't mean a thing, except when you start putting things together. And in which case he does, IMO, definitely deserve to be on the suspect list. Its been discussed and argued for quite some time about where The Ripper went after Mitre Square (if PC Long was correct that the apron and the chalk was NOT in the doorway when he made his previous passes) for an hour or so before coming back to Goulston St. to drop the cloth and write his message. If it was Hutchinson who killed Eddowes and most likely the rest of the Whitechapel vic's (and I'm definitely not saying that Hutch was absolutely JTR, in fact if I'm probably more inclined to believe that he WASNT... so far at least, but he now absolutely has my undivided attention) he wouldn't of had too far to go from his residence back to Goulston St and back home again. I mean its literally right around the corner! Maybe a 40-50 second walk, if that even. Strange...

[Sam Flynn]

Correct. The Victoria Home was a very short walk away from Goulston Street.

[RedBundy13]

The Victorian House?

Am I on the right house? I'm seeing the Victorian Home where Hutchinson was staying at as being on the corner of Commercial and Wentworth? On the map I'm looking at, its called The Victorian Workingmen's Home (or something close, tough to read since its so small), is this correct? If so, it's really that close to Goulston St.?

[Varqm]

It's possible, or he was a client.Per inquest nobody was in the court - Cox came at 3 am,so something caught the man's attention per Lewis 'standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out',possible but less likely.Most likely to me was he was up to no good.Will leave it at that.

The witnesses inside Miller's court were asleep or trying to,nobody was expecting anybody.Lewis did not hear/see anything of note inside Miller's court.
The lurking man knew somebody was in Miller's court who he was trying to contact again,waiting means prior contact,Kelly was the only resident with a prior meeting,that with Blotchy.

Good luck..Off for a while.

[Abby Normal]

I hi-lited the "three minutes" because you seem to assume this would be too long, yet as he didn't wear a watch, why would you make it an point of debate?
Clearly, as he had no watch he is estimating. So beyond the fact they stopped or paused before entering, the suggested time has no value.

Your second point, "at which point Lewis appeared", is based on what?
Hutchinson does not mention Lewis, but he doesn't have to.
And, as Lewis did see this couple ahead of her then Lewis was already in Dorset St - so she didn't "appear" after they entered the court, she was in Dorset St. before they entered the court.

Your objections are each based on a false premise.




Once again, you are completely WRONG.
Wickerman does not believe Astrachan was the murderer - re-think your argument.
I wouldn't be so adamant about the existence of Kennedy, and her seeing Kelly out on the street at "about 3:00 am", if Astrachan was the murderer - surely you could have figured that out, if you stopped to think for a moment.

My 'suspect' has always been the Britannia-man, if anyone.
What has the Britannia-man to do with Hutchinson's story?, nothing that I can see.
Have you been barking up the wrong tree all these years?

Maybe you shouldn't be so intent on criticizing other posters until you understand their point of view.

wicker

I hi-lited the "three minutes" because you seem to assume this would be too long, yet as he didn't wear a watch, why would you make it an point of debate?
Clearly, as he had no watch he is estimating. So beyond the fact they stopped or paused before entering, the suggested time has no value.

Your second point, "at which point Lewis appeared", is based on what?
Hutchinson does not mention Lewis, but he doesn't have to.
And, as Lewis did see this couple ahead of her then Lewis was already in Dorset St - so she didn't "appear" after they entered the court, she was in Dorset St. before they entered the court.

Your objections are each based on a false premise.

yeah-yours. I don't know if your being deliberately obtuse or obstinate or what but ill spell it out for you ONE MORE TIME before I give up and am done with this silliness.

she was in Dorset St. before they entered the court.

she couldn't have been because Hutchinson stood at the corner of dorset st while tMary and Aman lingered in the entrance to millers court before they went in the court to marys room. He then went and took his place as waiting watching man-waiting to see if they came out again. Sarah lewis then arrives in dorset st heading for millers court which before she enters spots hutch in his position. Mary and Aman are already long gone from entering millers court and are in her room.

so clearly Lewis couldn't have been in dorset st before Mary and Aman entered the court nor seen them "pass up the court".

for gods sake give it up man.

Once again, you are completely WRONG.
Wickerman does not believe Astrachan was the murderer - re-think your argument.
I wouldn't be so adamant about the existence of Kennedy, and her seeing Kelly out on the street at "about 3:00 am", if Astrachan was the murderer - surely you could have figured that out, if you stopped to think for a moment.

The phantom Kennedy appears. LOL! so mary goes out again(?!?) after bringing Aman to her room and is seen by the phantom twin kennedy now with Britannia man? the ridicoulousness never ends with you. Id stick with aman being her killer over this nonsense.

My 'suspect' has always been the Britannia-man, if anyone.
What has the Britannia-man to do with Hutchinson's story?, nothing that I can see.
Have you been barking up the wrong tree all these years?

Maybe you shouldn't be so intent on criticizing other posters until you understand their point of view.

[/QUOTE]

If I don't understand your view its because your view is so convoluted and confusing you need a PHD in tea leave reading to figure it out. Mind reading too, because this is the first time you've ever mentioned Britannia man as a suspect.

You might as well say Britannia man was also Aman it would actually make about as much sense. But Ill give you this-you deserve a gold metal in mental gymnastics.

I'm done with this nonsense-Ive spent enough time in your nutty legendarium.

[Wickerman]

So for the sake of truth I’ll just say ONE MORE time. Hutch watches them from the corner of Dorset street while they linger for about “three minutes” at the entrance of millers court before going in. He then goes and takes his position as waiting watching man, at which point Lewis appears, sees him there, as she then goes into millers court.

I hi-lited the "three minutes" because you seem to assume this would be too long, yet as he didn't wear a watch, why would you make it an point of debate?
Clearly, as he had no watch he is estimating. So beyond the fact they stopped or paused before entering, the suggested time has no value.

Your second point, "at which point Lewis appeared", is based on what?
Hutchinson does not mention Lewis, but he doesn't have to.
And, as Lewis did see this couple ahead of her then Lewis was already in Dorset St - so she didn't "appear" after they entered the court, she was in Dorset St. before they entered the court.

Your objections are each based on a false premise.

And just for the record and everyone is clear, wicker mans theory involves the ripper being a well dressed man, and therefore hutch has to be telling the truth about Aman, as it bolsters his theory. And anything that bolsters hutch telling the truth, No matter how ludicrous, or obviously erroneous must be defended at all costs.

Once again, you are completely WRONG.
Wickerman does not believe Astrachan was the murderer - re-think your argument.
I wouldn't be so adamant about the existence of Kennedy, and her seeing Kelly out on the street at "about 3:00 am", if Astrachan was the murderer - surely you could have figured that out, if you stopped to think for a moment.

My 'suspect' has always been the Britannia-man, if anyone.
What has the Britannia-man to do with Hutchinson's story?, nothing that I can see.
Have you been barking up the wrong tree all these years?

Maybe you shouldn't be so intent on criticizing other posters until you understand their point of view.

[Wickerman]

No, I won't cherry-pick one source. Instead, I'll take an overview of all the sources, and I'll throw in a dash of logistics based on the geography and street-plan for good measure. From that, it's possible to deduce a feasible sequence of events (irrespective of the sequence in which things got written up in witness statements etc) based on a survey of ALL the sources. From this, the most likely scenario is that Lewis, as she was about to enter Miller's Court, saw a man wearing a wideawake hat outside the doorway of Crossingham's (on the opposite side of Dorset Street to Miller's Court), whilst at much the same time spotting a couple further on in Dorset Street.

Ok, so you do agree Lewis walked down Dorset St., and you seem to agree this couple was also in Dorset St.
So, in your view, was this couple walking ahead of Lewis - between Lewis and Millers Court, or, were they beyond Millers Court?
And, what is written in Lewis's story to indicate your conclusion?

Simples.
Correct, because two separate women randomly deciding to up sticks and crash out in 2 Miller's Court and witnessing broadly similar events on the same night, would be an absurd coincidence. And so it is.

I like how you brush over the significant differences in their stories by saying "broadly similar" - that's amusing, and it is your Achilles Heel, betraying the fact you admit their stories are not the same.

[Wickerman]

She's not going to take 15 minutes to get from the Commercial/Dorset Street junction to the Keylers' room. As Varqm said, it's a matter of a minute or so, give or take.

There is no 15 minutes mentioned by either witness.