Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

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.

Not familiar with this suggested subtext. Your source for that would be?

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).

Perhaps you can share what that obvious reason was. As opposed to the witness giving their current address where they can be reached?

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

Doesn't Hutchinson's statement confirm that it took place where he usually slept?

"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning"

[Abby Normal]

Doesn't Hutchinson's statement confirm that it took place where he usually slept?

"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning"

yes but even the most basic stuff has to be rehashed over and over again with the hutch lovers.

[Wickerman]

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

Hutch is a popular witness to have a go at. One reason why so many jump on the "lets get Hutch" bandwagon is for the very reason's I have given before. Nothing offered by previous authors is satisfactory. Arguments are weak.
So out pops another author with another angle to try incriminate him.

It doesn't matter how many members or authors try to stick it to Hutch, none of them can agree on the basic's.
None can even agree on what he may have lied about.

Looks to me like his accusers are thrashing around treading water until someone comes up with a theory that is not full of holes.

[Wickerman]

One of many reports that Hutchinson appeared at the inquest.

Regards,

Simon

U.S. papers are not a good source.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

How did I know you were going to say that?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Doesn't Hutchinson's statement confirm that it took place where he usually slept?

"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning"

No, what Hutch is saying is. The place where I usually sleep was closed, I came in here when it opened in the morning.
Friday morning apparently was his first stay at the Victoria Home. His previous lodgings (where he usually slept) are not given.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

How did I know you were going to say that?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

All you have to do is compare like-for-like stories to see just how inaccurate some of their reporting was.

[Wickerman]

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",

So why do you think 'peaked-cap' man was the Ripper?
Aren't you in the same position?

[Ben]

Thanks, Caz! Good to see you here.

I would respectfully differ on the subject of Hutchinson’s perceived chances of avoiding identification if he remained silent. If a chance encounter with Lewis on the streets of Spitalfields had resulted in him being hauled before the cops, he would have been at a far greater disadvantage without having first a) established himself preemptively as a witness, and b) created a false trail in the form of surly Jewish Jack.

There is also an important secondary consideration that his decision to come forward owed as much to a desire to lay a false trail as it did to self-preservation. There is ample evidence from the double event to suggest that the killer sought to exploit anti-Jewish sentiment, and if Hutchinson was the killer, his Astrakhan creation may be seen as a logical extension of those earlier efforts. If, as you say, there was nothing in the form of fingerprints, DNA etc to incriminate him, he could have killed both birds with one stone, secure in the assumption that he was unlikely to get buckled as a result.

As for Lewis and Hutchinson being able (or otherwise) to recognise Wideawke and Astrakhan respectively, I have no problem with either. If Hutchinson had stated simply that the Astrakhan suspect had worn dark clothes and a hat, I would have no trouble reconciling this with his professed ability to recognise the man again.

What isn’t so plausible, or realistically possible, is a claim to have remembered so much intricate detail within such a tight time frame, and in those much discussed merge light available.

Even if Hutchinson had gone nowhere near the Town Hall on 12th November, his decision to come forward the moment the inquest closed is almost certainly not coincidence, since it “coincided” with the very moment the opportunity for a public airing of his evidence - which would have entailed a face-off with Lewis - had passed for good.

It would have been only reasonable for him to assume that anyone who entered the court on the night of the murder was more likely than not to appear at the inquest, and if he knew full well that one of them had seen a wideawake-wearing man staring at the court entrance, why expect anything other than the public disclosure of such a detail?

As far as the rent goes, her behaviour with Blotchy from 11.45 until at least an hour thereafter is wholly inconsistent with pressing anxiety over imminent rent collection.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hutch is a popular witness to have a go at. One reason why so many jump on the "lets get Hutch" bandwagon is for the very reason's I have given before. Nothing offered by previous authors is satisfactory. Arguments are weak.
So out pops another author with another angle to try incriminate him.

It doesn't matter how many members or authors try to stick it to Hutch, none of them can agree on the basic's.
None can even agree on what he may have lied about.

Looks to me like his accusers are thrashing around treading water until someone comes up with a theory that is not full of holes.

Nah. Its because his story and circs are full of holes.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Here's an account of Hutchinson corroborating his own story.

It's from the Echo [London], 14th November 1888—



Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Hi again, Caz.

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

I would strongly suspect not in the former case, but then nor did William Grant Grainger, who was also apparently identified by Lawende as the man from Church Passage, in 1895 if I recall correctly. The gentile (if not so gentle!) Grainger may not have been a correct identification either, but his age and height at least recall the 30ish, sailor-like, “rather rough and shabby” man originally described.

Certainly there was nothing in the original description to suggest a Jew, less still one in his early twenties. Ditto the broad-shouldered bruiser described by Schwartz.

I would suggest it was nigh on impossible to operate entirely unseen in those crowded streets, even in the wee hours, and I also think there’s enough broad consistency in many of the reported sightings - fleeting though they have been - to infer that they all saw the same man.

If he did allow himself to be seen by one or more witnesses, that would seem to favour someone of "foreign" or Jewish appearance.

No, quite the contrary.

The vast majority of witnesses described suspects with nothing remotely to suggest a foreign or Jewish appearance. Apart from Hutchinson himself, only Chapman described a “foreigner”, and she didn’t even see his face.

Cheers,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Here's another.

The last sentence is the most important.

Belfast Newsletter, 14th November 1888—

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Here's an account of Hutchinson corroborating his own story.

It's from the Echo [London], 14th November 1888—

[ATTACH]18720[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

I don't see how you can read it that way. Who was Hutchinson confirming his own story to?