Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Abby Normal]

This is a good point, also - One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view.
So taken at face value Abberline must have believed Astkaran wasn't Mary's killer and that she was killed later in the morning or he came to disbelief Hutch.

Hi DK
Exactly! where is this star witness Hutch? the one who definitely saw the mans face!?! "They, however, state that they only saw his back",

Not only that-stooped down to peer into his face, heard him speak... and can be identified?!?


Its obvious to anyone that dosnt have some kind of hutch anti-bias that Abberline quickly dropped him as a credible witness, never to be mentioned again.

[Ben]

Apologies, everyone, for the length of these essays - it’s been a while! If you’ll permit one more, I noticed a another major no-no resurface:

It was suggested earlier in the thread that Hutchinson’s lodgings were located somewhere other than the Victoria Home on the night/morning of the Kelly murder. The subtext here being that if he was domiciled elsewhere, he might magically have missed all news of the Kelly murder, thus magically justifying his failure to come forward earlier.

Unfortunately for these interesting suppositions, all eyewitnesses were obliged to provide their addresses for the night of the witnessed event (for what are surely obvious reasons). The fact that the Victoria Home was given as Hutchinson’s residence informs us, beyond question, that it was his home at the time of the Kelly murder; otherwise a different or additional residence would have been listed. It’s that simple.

Some have gone so far as to assert - without a scrap of evidence - that Hutchinson’s press interview occurred at the Victoria Home. It is then claimed, in the most circular fashion imaginable, that because he referred to a a place where he “usually” slept, that “usual” place must be somewhere else, and that it was this mystery establishment - not the Victoria Home - that Hutchinson allegedly attempted to gain access to on the night of the Kelly murder.

Back on our planet, meanwhile, it is obvious that the press interview took place somewhere else, at a more sensible and less conspicuous location; the Princess Alice pub for instance, situated directly opposite the Victoria Home on Commercial Street, would have made an ideal venue.

In this infinitely more plausible scenario, the place where he “usually slept” would still refer to the Victoria Home, and when he claimed to have told a fellow lodger “here” about the events of 9th, he meant precisely that; “here” in the pub. He claimed to have told a bloke from the pub who happened to be a fellow Victoria Home lodger. Simples.

[Ben]

Thanks, Abby!

Good to be back. Hope you’re well.

[caz]

I think however much some of us dismiss the idea of a guilty Hutchinson coming forward on the grounds that it would be imprudent to do so, at least according to their (presumably non-sociopathic) logic, it remains a reality that serial killers have been noted to inject themselves into their own investigations, and in circumstances very similar to what has been proposed of Hutchinson.

Experts in laws enforcement are so familiar with this strategy that they even lay traps to “flush out” their serialist quarry in anticipation of them resorting to it, in some form. Expert opinion and historical precedent must always supersede the layman’s rationale as to what X or Y killer “ought” to have done in a such or such a predicament.

Cheers,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Good to see you back!

It's not just a case of being 'imprudent' to come forward. And what 'predicament'?

In 1888 it would have been totally unnecessary to do so, as nothing and nobody could have put Hutch anywhere near the scene if he hadn't done so himself, let alone in the actual room where and when the murder was committed. With no DNA, fingerprints, CCTV or reliable TOD, it would have been one woman's word against his, even in the highly unlikely event that he had carelessly allowed Sarah Lewis a good enough look at his face to be certain it was him, in the other highly unlikely event that he hung around Whitechapel afterwards, wearing the same clothes and hat, giving her the opportunity to spot him and report her lurking man to a policeman.

If Hutch could not have seen well enough in the dark to describe anyone in that detail and say he'd know them again, even under a street lamp and in reasonably close proximity, why does the same argument not apply to Sarah Lewis? Why would Hutch have been in a predicament, if she could not have seen him well enough in the dark from their different positions, to describe him in any detail, let alone know him again?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

One instance is not evidence of stalking behaviour, Abby, especially as Hutch's interest seems to have been entirely focused on the flashy Jewish looking man picked up by Kelly, and not on Kelly herself.



Abberline believed in his suspect/story.

He may not have come forward before because he had assumed Kelly was killed much later in the morning and her encounter with Flash Harry was unconnected.

Of course he had no alibi - making it crazy for him to come forward if he was the killer or thought the police could make a case for it.

If Flash Harry looked Jewish, what was Hutch supposed to say - that he didn't?



We don't know he was staying at the Victoria Home before he went down to Romford, or even if he spent most of his time in Whitechapel, but he could have worked out for himself that Kelly was probably single at the time if she was asking him for money and then took Flash Harry back to her room!



That's the bit I can't accept. If he has already offed several women without mishap, he'd have been all too aware of his surroundings when 'stalking' Kelly, and made sure he kept his head well down, so he could spot who was around without anyone getting a good look at him. When exactly would it have dawned on him that he may have been careless enough to let someone spot him - to the extent that they would know him again and tell a policeman? Do you honestly think he'd have hung around outside the inquest, to find out if anyone mentioned seeing someone who looked just like him?? Did he take precautions and go in disguise, so that when he learned that a woman called Sarah Lewis had indeed spotted him, she wouldn't immediately recognise him on her way out?



Really?

Love,

Caz
X

yes, really

[Wickerman]

Plus, Lewis saw nobody in Miller's Court, and said so explicitly.

Of course no-one was in the court, Astrachan & Kelly did not stay in the court either.

[caz]

Caz
Explain why it had to be Badham that used the phrase,Can be identified?.Your claim seems to indicate that Hutchinson would have been,for some reason you do not state,unable to do so.Why wouldn't he have been?What was the gain in changing,"I would recognise the man if I saw him again",or words to that effect,to,"can be identified".Brevity? The need to save time and paper space? Can we now expect,if it is true that changing a phrase and a whole paragraph occured in that instance,that the hundreds of interviews that were conducted in the Whitechapel murders,suffered the same fate? You of the same mind as Jon,that such practises were common,had formats supplied by the police department,and were encouraged to use them?

No Harry, it's simple English language, spoken versus written. Hutch was the one claiming he could identify the man if he saw him again.

Agreed?

So why would Hutch [or indeed anyone] have said "Can be identified"? It's not even a sentence and it doesn't use the first person. In writing it's just shorthand for: '[The suspect] can be identified [by the witness]'.

Therefore Hutch would have said "Oh yes, I'm certain I can identify the man again", or words to that effect, and Badham wrote: 'Can be identified'. It's really simple, Harry, and nothing else makes sense.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

But this is all highly subjective, Abby.

'Snubbed' by Mary? If anything, Mary was snubbed by Hutch, who couldn't [or wouldn't] lend/give/spare her sixpence. What was she going to do? "Oh well, the rent man can wait, Hutchy Boy. You can come back with me for free." They would have had to be very good friends in that case, wouldn't they?

Hutch said he was waiting to see if the man came out again. No evidence that he was 'obsessed' with the woman at all. So obsessed that he had been down in Romford only the day before looking for work?

Love,

Caz
X

Yes she dropped him like a hot potato once he had nothing to offer. he then followed her around and waited outside her place in the middle of the night.

why would he be interested in the man?

[Abby Normal]

Of course no-one was in the court, Astrachan & Kelly did not stay in the court either.

Grrrrrrrrrr!


I do believe you have to actually be in the court the go through the court. lol.


unless you are now admitting that Lewis never saw Mary and Aman and that she saw no one go into the court at all that night.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Many thanks for the kind welcome back - good to be corresponding again.

Yes indeed.

On the subject of lighting and Widewake man’s vantage point in relation to Lewis, I can firstly assure you that the distance between the two was nowhere near as great as “25 feet”.

I don't think you can Ben, the street was 25 ft wide and you yourself spoke of 'triangulation', placing Hutchinson on the other side of the street to Lewis.
So, at least 25 ft, more likely even further.

Even more tellingly regarding the timing of his appearance at Commercial Street police station, it corresponded exactly with the moment the opportunity for him to be questioned in a public setting disappeared forever. The idea of that being a mere coincidence is borderline impossible, as far as I’m concerned.

He can't avoid being questioned, and didn't. He was interrogated by Abberline.
Clearly, he had no concerns on that score, he would be well aware the police can place him in a line-up if they so choose.
So, he certainly did not avoid any risks associated with being recognised.

... The early morning time of death was covered far, far more extensively that the late morning version suggested by Maurice Lewis and Maxwell.

The reason I know you are bluffing is because I have read them all. Friday, Saturday, Sunday & Monday morning. I couldn't make the claim unless I knew what I was saying was true.

Even the Lewis-plagiariser "Mrs. Kennedy” was covered in a great many newspapers on the 10th November, and the chances of Hutchinson missing this - if indeed he was reading any newspapers at all - were slim to non-existent.

Sure it was, just not as widely as M.Lewis & Maxwell. The difference was, cries of "murder" were common enough, and pointed out in the press to be often a false alarm.

In addition, he lived in the Victoria Home, which was a few hundred yards from the crime scene.

Not before the murder he didn't. The place where he usually slept was closed.

[caz]

You miss my point regarding Lawende - I’m not suggesting he was the perfect witness or acquired a perfect sighting. I’m saying he was considered more like to have seen the killer than other witnesses, including discredited Hutchinson.

Did Hutchinson look Jewish, Ben? Or did he resemble Kosminski in any way?

If not, it seems he was not the same man seen with Eddowes by Lawende - assuming Lawende was the famous Seaside Home witness.

Alternatively, it seems he was not the same man seen with Stride by Schwartz - if Schwartz was the famous Seaside Home witness.

Me, I'm not sure if anyone got a decent look at the actual murderer, or was able to give a reliable description. If not, it might suggest he always took basic precautions against it. If he did allow himself to be seen by one or more witnesses, that would seem to favour someone of "foreign" or Jewish appearance. Hutch doesn't exactly tick either box, does he?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes she dropped him like a hot potato once he had nothing to offer. he then followed her around and waited outside her place in the middle of the night.

why would he be interested in the man?

But he didn't approach Kelly; she approached him - to try and borrow sixpence, which he didn't have or couldn't spare. If he was interested in the woman for sex, and/or a bed for the rest of the night, how was he going to pay for it?

One way it might make sense is if he was interested in the man, because he hoped to relieve him of money or valuables when he reappeared, so he would then have something to offer Kelly for sloppy seconds - er - her services.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

But he didn't approach Kelly; she approached him - to try and borrow sixpence, which he didn't have or couldn't spare. If he was interested in the woman for sex, and/or a bed for the rest of the night, how was he going to pay for it?

One way it might make sense is if he was interested in the man, because he hoped to relieve him of money or valuables when he reappeared, so he would then have something to offer Kelly for her services.

Love,

Caz
X

so hes a liar AND a thief then!

at least you think hes not the totally honest concerned citizen that many try to portray him as.


lets face it at very best hutch is a lying conman, trying to capitalize on his "friends" murder.

maybe a thief, just possibly a killer.

[Abby Normal]

Originally Posted by rjpalmer
To me, the very existance of this thread amply demonstrates why a person would hesitate before coming forward and contacting the police.

Wish I'd said that.

Love,

Caz
X

the very existence of this thread shows how many people think Hutch is a liar and possibly the ripper.

[Simon Wood]

The story of George Hutchinson is cut from whole cloth.

Daily Globe [St. Paul, Minn] 14th November 1888—



The description of Mr. A as 'Jewish' only appeared in Hutchinson's original 12th November police statement.

Los Angeles Herald, 14th November 1888—



Who was the other person who saw Mr. A?

Hocking Sentinel [Ohio] 15th November 1888—



One of many reports that Hutchinson appeared at the inquest.

Regards,

Simon