Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[packers stem]

Actually, that point was raised years ago.
The rebuttal to that was that Hutchinson may have been at the inquest.

It was then pointed out how small the room was, and that Abberline was present, so if Hutch had been there, among the only 'handful' of public, Abberline would have seen him.

The rebuttal to that was then, Hutch must have waited outside the inquest and picked up on gossip, or involved himself in gossip?, to learn what Lewis had seen.
This is how ridiculous these exchanges have become.

The anti-Hutchinson crowd just can't accept that Sarah Lewis told the court the same story as Hutchinson did.
That there was a man standing opposite the court, that he was watching a man & woman in Dorset street. That the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, and that this couple walked up the court together.

Lewis confirms Hutchinson, it's that simple.

But barring the laughable suggestion of him standing at the door at the inquest with his ear to the door , he couldn't know that he had been seen at 6pm.
My point stands
The whole Hutchinson story is a nonsense
As is the Lewis story which altered dramatically between statement and inquest and the constant cloak changes between Kennedy and Lewis .
Yes , I know you think both existed and were sisters
Evidence required ,as if so , Kennedy's was the last sighting and she should have been at the inquest

[Wickerman]

...
The main mistake that people make though is that Sarah Lewis' testimony did not make the press of the 12th
At 6pm that day , Hutchinson would know nothing of the statement .Only witnesses , jury and journalists knew .
Hence the hutch in fear , go to the police first theory collapses

Actually, that point was raised years ago.
The rebuttal to that was that Hutchinson may have been at the inquest.

It was then pointed out how small the room was, and that Abberline was present, so if Hutch had been there, among the only 'handful' of public, Abberline would have seen him.

The rebuttal to that was then, Hutch must have waited outside the inquest and picked up on gossip, or involved himself in gossip?, to learn what Lewis had seen.
This is how ridiculous these exchanges have become.

The anti-Hutchinson crowd just can't accept that Sarah Lewis told the court the same story as Hutchinson did.
That there was a man standing opposite the court, that he was watching a man & woman in Dorset street. That the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, and that this couple walked up the court together.

Lewis confirms Hutchinson, it's that simple.

[Batman]

That is true. Then again, I donīt think Hutchinson lied. I think he stood outside the court for fortyfive minutes - on the night before the murder night.

And I still think his leaving Lewis out of his story is the dealmaker.

He could have been a rabid anti-Semite and wanted to tell a story about the mother of all Jews he saw walking with Kelly.

Check out the illustrated Police News cartoon of him.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/13/56/c8/1356c8f1ddaf2bb3b4cea84ae09d1437.jpg

Oh look, even a picture of Hutchinson in there also.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman - the key point has nothing to do with Lewis only seeing Hutchinson for 10 or 12 seconds and thus not being able to identify him; it has to do with Hutchinson being spotted for 10 or 12 seconds and then feeling the need to justify standing outside the court for 45 minutes!!

You have obviously read your fair share of 'true crime,' watched crime shows on television, and have followed cases in the newspapers, etc. etc.

Have you noticed any trends? Murderers lie. They deflect. They make up bogus alibis. They say its 'all a big mistake, officer,' etc. etc.

What they don't do is unnecessarily place themselves at the scene of a murder for the better part of an hour for no apparent reason.

That is true. Then again, I donīt think Hutchinson lied. I think he stood outside the court for fortyfive minutes - on the night before the murder night.

And I still think his leaving Lewis out of his story is the dealmaker.

[Abby Normal]

Fisherman - the key point has nothing to do with Lewis only seeing Hutchinson for 10 or 12 seconds and thus not being able to identify him; it has to do with Hutchinson being spotted for 10 or 12 seconds and then feeling the need to justify standing outside the court for 45 minutes!!

You have obviously read your fair share of 'true crime,' watched crime shows on television, and have followed cases in the newspapers, etc. etc.

Have you noticed any trends? Murderers lie. They deflect. They make up bogus alibis. They say its 'all a big mistake, officer,' etc. etc.

What they don't do is unnecessarily place themselves at the scene of a murder for the better part of an hour for no apparent reason.

Hi RJ

Fisherman - the key point has nothing to do with Lewis only seeing Hutchinson for 10 or 12 seconds and thus not being able to identify him; it has to do with Hutchinson being spotted for 10 or 12 seconds and then feeling the need to justify standing outside the court for 45 minutes!!

why did he feel the need to justify to place himself outside marys door in a later press account let alone across the street?

and he probably felt the need to justify atnding across the street for 45 minutes because thats what he actually did.

You have obviously read your fair share of 'true crime,' watched crime shows on television, and have followed cases in the newspapers, etc. etc.

fish has done a tad more than that LOL.

Have you noticed any trends? Murderers lie. They deflect. They make up bogus alibis. They say its 'all a big mistake, officer,' etc. etc.

What they don't do is unnecessarily place themselves at the scene of a murder for the better part of an hour for no apparent reason

they sure do-not only do people who are completely innocent give false confessions, people who are guilty involve themselves when they could stay quiet. They write letters, they come forward as "witnesses", they contact the police.

Its police work 101 to treat all witnesses, especially ones who come forward on their own accord, as potential suspects until they are cleared.

I recently watched a true crime show where the killer(absolutely on no ones radar) called the victims parents on their dead daughters cell phone-saying he was with the girl the night she was murdered-she had left her phone in his truck but ran off and approached another man.

Now of course I admit most stay low and dont come forward, but to try and say just because someone came forward as a witness somehow clears them is ridiculously weak argument.

and this will be an odd exchange between you and fish, because fish's favored suspect, did something far more adaucious than anything hutch did (if hutch was the killer).

[packers stem]

Liz long
Lawende
And old uncle Tom Cobbley and all in Berner Street. ...
None of these reported sightings tempted any Mr Hutchinson to enter a police station ....
Yet a Sarah Lewis statement he's not seen or heard and he falls to pieces ??
I think not

[packers stem]

Fisherman - the key point has nothing to do with Lewis only seeing Hutchinson for 10 or 12 seconds and thus not being able to identify him; it has to do with Hutchinson being spotted for 10 or 12 seconds and then feeling the need to justify standing outside the court for 45 minutes!!

You have obviously read your fair share of 'true crime,' watched crime shows on television, and have followed cases in the newspapers, etc. etc.

Have you noticed any trends? Murderers lie. They deflect. They make up bogus alibis. They say its 'all a big mistake, officer,' etc. etc.

What they don't do is unnecessarily place themselves at the scene of a murder for the better part of an hour for no apparent reason.

Agreed
Even if he thought he had been seen he would sit and wait .
If he didn't know then they may not know him etc
The main mistake that people make though is that Sarah Lewis' testimony did not make the press of the 12th
At 6pm that day , Hutchinson would know nothing of the statement .Only witnesses , jury and journalists knew .
Hence the hutch in fear , go to the police first theory collapses

[rjpalmer]

Fisherman - the key point has nothing to do with Lewis only seeing Hutchinson for 10 or 12 seconds and thus not being able to identify him; it has to do with Hutchinson being spotted for 10 or 12 seconds and then feeling the need to justify standing outside the court for 45 minutes!!

You have obviously read your fair share of 'true crime,' watched crime shows on television, and have followed cases in the newspapers, etc. etc.

Have you noticed any trends? Murderers lie. They deflect. They make up bogus alibis. They say its 'all a big mistake, officer,' etc. etc.

What they don't do is unnecessarily place themselves at the scene of a murder for the better part of an hour for no apparent reason.

[Fisherman]

Good evening RJ,



Excellent. Just excellent rebuttal of the George Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper theory.



Or if one prefers, it's easier to believe Hutchinson made it all up. Because he could. Which is usually why people do everything they do.

Easier to believe anything but he was Jack the Rpper. Either way, you have done great here. Where were you 10 years ago RJ when we needed you on these Hutch suspect threads.

This didn't take long. Our work is done here. Let's all go to Denny's for a Grand Slam breakfast.

Roy

Not to dampen your enthusiasm, Roy, but the argument that Lewis would have had a few seconds only, in darkness to boot, to observe the loiterer had been presented many times before. To which degree it has impressed those who favour Hutchinson should be obvious.

Personally, I donīt think it is the best argument against the theory that Hutch was the killer - if the loiterer WAS Hutchinson (and I donīt think that he was, not for a minute), then he could not be certain about the extent to which Lewis could make out his appearance, and so it would stand to reason that he could have wanted to take precautions by going to the police, offering up his story.

To me, Frank Leanders words about the signatures tells us that Abberlines and Dews assertions about the veracity of the witness were well grounded - he seems to have given his correct name on the witness statement. Plus, Hutchinsons omission to mention Lewis points totally away from the two having met right outside Millers Court. The explanation that Hutchinson would not have wanted the police to realize that Lewis was the very reason for his coming forwards falls flat on itīs behind as far as Iīm concerned; if he was really in place at the time he said he was, and if Lewis really passed into the court at the time she said she did, then there was not a chance in hell that he could have missed her. And he would have been acutely aware of that, so withholding that information could never serve to bolster his version of events. It would instead cast doubt on it.

I donīt think that there is anybody out here who entertains the possibility that Hutchinson would not have been asked about Lewis when it was found out that the two simply must have met. If Hutchinson at that stage claimed that he did NOT see any woman entering the court at any time, his version of events would become one that the police could not trust. Conversely, if he DID say "Yes, now that you mention it, there WAS this woman who hurriedly sneaked into Millers Court" and if he was able to describe her general appearance, then we would be reading today about how Hutchinson remained the star witness of the investigation.

Instead, he sunk into oblivion, much to his own dismay if he was Topping Hutchinson (and that is how it very much looks), but if Walter Dew was correct - and there is no reason to think he could or would not have been - he was never regarded as anything but truthful.

So what do we have if this is a correct version of the proceedings? We have a witness who stated unequivocally that no woman entered the court on the night when he was there, we have people in Millerīs Court confirming that Lewis DID arrive at the approximate time she said, and we therefore have a mistake. This mistake, however, Hutchinson never owned up to, and Dews reasoning accordingly went along the line of how even the most honest of people do mistake the days at times.

To me, that is how it all adds up. There is no way to prove it, but there is no compelling reason not to accept it either, and so that is what I personally do.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening RJ,

Lewis saw a man standing against the wall... for what...10 or 12 seconds? She then ducked inside.

There was no reason that Hutchinson needed to explain his "prolonged loitering." No one saw him loitering for anything near 3 minutes let alone 45 minutes, nor did anyone recognize him.

Excellent. Just excellent rebuttal of the George Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper theory.

It's an incredibly weak argument. It's much easier to believe that Hutchinson's suspect merely existed.

Or if one prefers, it's easier to believe Hutchinson made it all up. Because he could. Which is usually why people do everything they do.

Easier to believe anything but he was Jack the Rpper. Either way, you have done great here. Where were you 10 years ago RJ when we needed you on these Hutch suspect threads.

This didn't take long. Our work is done here. Let's all go to Denny's for a Grand Slam breakfast.

Roy

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

Do you think it is an accident that the ladies of the East End are soliciting in Aldgate and Whitechapel rather than Bow and West Ham?

I utterly dispute that no soliciting occurred in Bow and West Ham. I’m afraid you’ve succumbed to the popular misconception that Whitechapel was the only “red light district” in London, whereas in reality it wasn’t even the largest. I’m sure a lot of soliciting went on in and around Aldgate and St. Botolphs church, but it generally involved the ladies approaching the gentlemen in their carriages, rather that the gentlemen themselves making their own precarious top-hatted excursions into the abyss.

As interesting as your comparisons with your old home town may be, I’m afraid they’re not in the slightest bit applicable, unless it happened to be the most notorious slum hotspot in the county at a time when a notorious serial killer was active in that very hotspot.

Who said he was the Ripper? I merely state that these types do, in fact, exist

Yes, but they don’t dress in their most expenses clothes and display their thick gold watch chains in the most “vicious semi-criminal” locality in London, in the small hours, when the hunt for the ripper was afoot. Unless you can provide me with a specific example of someone who did so, besides Astrakhan, who departed the district unaccosted? Monmartre this wasn’t.

Then suddenly realizing that his idea might not have been so great, so he hesitates at the court, worrying that he might get sandbagged yet again...but goes anyway.

And in so doing, the strutting tit only goes and corners himself in a tiny room in a claustrophobic court with a single escape route, safe in the knowledge that a potential mugger or wannabe ripper-hunter had just “stooped down” to gawp at his mug, and then followed him to this potential death-trap.

If the difference between being a toff and being a non-descript local chap is just a matter of changing one's clothing, then you've just seriously undermined your "local man" profile, haven't you?

Well, considering how many non-descript local chaps there were in situ compared to dressed-down “toffs”, I think the “profile” is pretty safe. It disturbs me greatly that anyone seriously still disputes the likelihood of the killer being a “non-descript local chap”.

All the best,
Ben

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ben.

Do you think it is an accident that the ladies of the East End are soliciting in Aldgate and Whitechapel rather than Bow and West Ham?

Red-light districts ALWAYS rely on men coming in from outside the area. Don't be so naïve, Ben. They are in Whitechapel because it abuts the City and they want to make it easier for West-Enders to find them.

In my old home town, back when the cops used to have a 'sweep' of the slums on a Saturday night, they used to put the names of the 'Johns' in the newspapers. It wasn't the least bit rare to find lawyers, well-off businessmen, or University types among the names.

Easier for you to believe perhaps, but for those of us who moved on from toff rippers long ago, it is altogether less palatable.

Who said he was the Ripper? I merely state that these types do, in fact, exist. I've known one, and I can readily imagine that he would have behaved in exactly the manner that Hutch describes. The instant laughter. The bonhomie. The trying to kiss a streetwalker. Then suddenly realizing that his idea might not have been so great, so he hesitates at the court, worrying that he might get sandbagged yet again...but goes anyway. It rings true. But since this toff has not yet been identified, I am hardly in a position to claim he is the murderer. Personally, I suspect that he and Kelly know one another.

It’s a common misconception that “slummers” entered the nocturnal east end sporting their finest clothes and accessories. The vast majority of them (i.e. the ones that didn’t get mugged or worse) dressed down for the occasion.

Better be careful, Ben. If the difference between being a toff and being a non-descript local chap is just a matter of changing one's clothing, then you've just seriously undermined your "local man" profile, haven't you?

Good luck with your theories.

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

The reason you have to keep fielding this question and spinning all sorts of answers is because your scenario is utterly weak and nonsensical.

I don’t “have to keep fielding this question”. Please don’t embrace the delusion that I’m perpetually hassled by an army of posters who all share your proclaimed aversion to Hutchinson as a suspect, anxious as you are to descend on any related thread en masse with their righteous outrage. We all know that the only “fielding” required is in response to the same two or three people, whose preoccupation with an upper-class, educated outsider ripper governs their approach to this particular topic.

No one saw him loitering for anything near 3 minutes let alone 45 minutes, nor did anyone recognize him.

Hutchinson had no idea of the extent of Lewis’s ability, or otherwise, to recognise him again should their paths have crossed subsequently.

I never suggested that he was under any pressure to explain his “prolonged” loitering. I suggested that he claimed to have stood there that long for the purpose of “planting” Astrakhan man in the room for as long as possible, and also to allow for the possibility that he was seen by other potential witnesses during his vigil.

It's much easier to believe that Hutchinson's suspect merely existed. Toffs wander into the slums all the time

Easier for you to believe perhaps, but for those of us who moved on from toff rippers long ago, it is altogether less palatable. It’s a common misconception that “slummers” entered the nocturnal east end sporting their finest clothes and accessories. The vast majority of them (i.e. the ones that didn’t get mugged or worse) dressed down for the occasion.

You’ll also find that a “bit of rough” could be procured throughout London, and needn’t have involved an excursion into the most notorious area of London at a time when plain clothes police and self-styled vigilantes were apt to harass anyone who appeared even vaguely out-of-place.

You appear to be confusing 1888 Whitechapel with Place Pigalle.

All the best,
Ben

[rjpalmer]

So he could give an excuse for loitering on the street where he was seen by Sarah Lewis.

Ben- The reason you have to keep fielding this question and spinning all sorts of answers is because your scenario is utterly weak and nonsensical.

Lewis saw a man standing against the wall... for what...10 or 12 seconds? She then ducked inside.

There was no reason that Hutchinson needed to explain his "prolonged loitering." No one saw him loitering for anything near 3 minutes let alone 45 minutes, nor did anyone recognize him.

It's like saying that Elizabeth Long's shabby gentile suspect in Hanbury Street, had he come forward, would have needed to explain why he had been loiting there for 45 mintutes, when, in fact, Long only saw him for 20 or 30 seconds as she walked past.

It's an incredibly weak argument. It's much easier to believe that Hutchinson's suspect merely existed. Toffs wander into the slums all the time. I can tell you tales of an elderly relative of mine who loved going into red-light districts. It was the danger and the garishness that attracted him. And yes, he dressed to the teeth, and was waylaid at least twice to my knowledge for his stupidity. He was a former Justice of the Peace but evidently considered himself 'a bit of a lad.' It's utterly naive to think these types don't exist. It's called "liking a bit of the rough."

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

So Hutch invented a dressy Jew so he could give an excuse for watching them both?

So he could give an excuse for loitering on the street where he was seen by Sarah Lewis.

Why would he be concerned about a man who, in his own words "didn't look like he could hurt anyone

I didn’t say he was “concerned”, and more crucially, nor did Hutchinson ever claim to have been so. He told police that he was simply “surprised” to see a man of Astrakhan’s appearance in Kelly’s company.

Why couldn't he have described a Blotchy-type character, and just said, "I was surprised to see her with such a villainous looking wretch", which is why I thought it best to watch them?

Because that would amount to an expression of concern for Kelly’s safety, which “watching” them wouldn’t have made any sense of. What good was standing on the opposite side of the street and “watching” likely to achieve in the event that the “villainous looking wretch” got knifey?

That’s the reason Hutchinson told the police he had “no suspicion” that Astrakhan was the murderer; because otherwise the police would have grilled him as to why he took no action.

Which might suggest your "timewaster" theory needs revising?

Since I’ve never subscribed to any “timewaster theory”, I see no need for any “revision”.

All the best,
Ben