Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

Even if Maxwell was right, who's to say that Mr Astrakhan wasn't back in No 13 enjoying his fourth post-coital cigar of the night, waiting to finish Kelly off when she returned? In that context, were there any firm reports of Kelly having been seen with any other man after Hutchinson left Miller's Court?

Sorry to do this to you, but you asked....
"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."
Evening News, 10 Nov.

"Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour."
Morning Advertiser, Nov 14th 1888.

So, other residents saw her too.

If not, then - Maxwell or no Maxwell - Hutchinson claims to have seen her with the last known man in her company, and an odd-bod at that, so this was important in itself.

What was Eddowes doing seven hours before her murder, and why is it an important clue?
What was Stride doing seven hours before her murder, who ran to police to report this important fact?
Choose whatever phraseology you like to make it sound important, but it is still too far ahead of the crime to be a concern.

Regardless of what the papers (confusingly and unofficially) said, Hutchinson saw his pretty friend - sorry, acquaintance - in the company of a dodgy looking bloke, of stern countenance and carrying a suspicious-looking parcel to boot, in the early hours of the morning of her horrific murder. He is simply not going to say "ah, well, she must have died much later, so I won't bother telling the police" - in fact, he claims to have done the precise opposite.

Well, if he did tell the police on Sunday morning, the entire argument that he took three/four days to come forward is, kaput!
Another false accusation?
Ergo, no suspicion.

[Sam Flynn]

Whatever, Jon. We'll never agree on this, and I don't buy your argument at all.

[packers stem]

Abby - The man with the peaked cap outside Mitre Square never existed. He is an obvious figment created from the 'sailor' theory that was being kicked around in the press at the time. The timing is such that Harris, Lawende, and Levy obviously murdered Eddowes and then made up this sailor chap to cover their tracks.

That's basically the Hutchinson theory, transposed onto the Eddowes murder. And one can play the game all day long.

The paradox of the Hutchinson theory is that if his statement is a plate of porkies, as many seem to believe, then there is no good reason to believe he was even in Dorset Street on the morning of the murder. Why believe the word of a man who, to you, is such an obvious liar?

Using your same arguments, I can claim Georgie never made it back from Romford until the following day, and is nothing more than a publicity hound who decided to become the star witness when he heard about an unidentified wall lounger.

Thus, the Hutchinson theory has been stuck on 1st base for twenty years, and there is no chance of it advancing to 2nd without being tossed out by the catcher.

One problem is that he couldn't have heard about the 'unidentified wall lounger' either as Sarah Lewis didn't make the evening press
Only Witnesses, Jury etc at the inquest .
Sarah Lewis wasn't common knowledge until the 13th

[Ben]

“Yet, you think he is not going to treat a witness who claimed to be with the victim in the overnight hours with some degree of caution?”

That wasn’t what I said, Jon.

I’m quite sure that Abberline treated all witnesses with “some degree of caution”, especially after so many had been suspected of being publicity-seekers - the category into which Hutchinson was ultimately consigned following his apparent discrediting. That Hutchinson passed muster for a period of about 48 hours may be taken as evidence only that a beleaguered and exhausted Abberline was prepared, at least initially, to clutch at any superficially promising straw at that particular juncture.

I’m not sure quite what you mean by “put the witness through the ringer”, but if you’re seriously suggesting that Abberline was able to prove Hutchinson innocent of the ripper murders by the early evening of the 12th November - a few hours after Hutchinson first introduced himself - I would be grateful for an explanation as to how this was physically possible.

I knew you couldn't be bothered”

To do what, Jon?

I would be grateful to know what exactly is being requested of me here. If you require assistance navigating your way through the numerous fallacies of your own very bad argument that Hutchinson’s “delay” is somehow excusable on the basis that he only read about the later mornings time of death for Kelly, I need only encourage you to read Gareth’s sensible responses.

It is utterly inconceivable that an innocent, truth-purveying Hutchinson delayed coming forward for three crucial days purely because he supposedly read the extreme minority press coverage of a later time of death, and decided on the basis of this that his evidence wasn't relevant. This would also mean that he remained somehow oblivious to Kennedy's account, and the enormous wealth of well-publicized information to the effect that Kelly had been killed in the small hours, in common with all other ripper victims.

By the way, which other Miller’s Court residents mentioned that Kelly was “out of her house” between 2.00am and 3.00am on the morning of her murder? I dearly hope that you’ve been better schooled than to accept an uncorroborated, unnamed alleged account as genuine just because the Morning Advertiser said so, but you continue to surprise me.

[Ben]

For the blissfully uninitiated, Jon’s bizarre argument is that Hutchinson three-day delay in coming forward - terminating the moment the inquest came to a close (a “coincidence” apparently) - can be explained away on the basis that he came to realise only too late that his story might just be “relevant”. Prior to that, argues Jon and nobody else, Hutchinson had read only the press accounts mentioning a later morning time of death, somehow missing all of these:

“During the early hours of yesterday morning another murder of a most revolting and fiendish character took place in Spitalfields." - The Times, 10th November.

"This much, however, has been found, that some payment was made by the man for the use of the room; that that payment was received by someone residing in the house; and that the murderer and his victim entered the place in the small hours of Friday morning - between one and two o'clock as near as can be gathered." - East London Observer, 10th November.

"The hour at which the deed was done can only be conjectured, as the last evidence of the woman being alive was at one o'clock in the morning, when she was heard singing. - The Daily Telegraph, 10th November.

"CRY OF "MURDER!" HEARD AT 3.30. Our representative has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operation upon his victim". - The Echo, 10th November.

"Yesterday morning it was discovered that another horrible murder had been committed at Whitechapel. The victim has been identified as Mary Jane Kelly, 26 years of age, who lived for some time with a man named Barnet, otherwise Danny. According to an account on which reliance has been placed, Kelly was seen late on Thursday night with a respectably dressed man." - Daily News, 10th November.

“This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murder was committed...

...This description of the man suspected of the murder tallies exactly with that in the possession of the police, and there is very little doubt that the murderer entered Kelly's house late on Thursday night or early on Friday morning.” - St. James' Gazette, 10th November.

That would require some considerable feat of selective reading, and still wouldn’t explain why he thought a description of a sinister man seen with his soon-to-be-murdered acquaintance of three years, was irrelevant.

[Ben]

The man with the peaked cap outside Mitre Square never existed. He is an obvious figment created from the 'sailor' theory that was being kicked around in the press at the time.”

Nah, RJ.

Firstly, there was no “sailor theory” that gathered any particular traction or momentum at the time, certainly not to the extent that the generic surly Jewish villain did; and secondly, Lawende’s evidence stood the test of time in terms of being considered a likely sighting of the actual offender, in stark contrast to Hutchinson’s discredited offerings.

The reality is that Hutchinson is increasingly considered a highly dubious witness, if not a viable person of interest. That particular train left the station long ago, and the few who remain obstinate in refusing to buy a ticket are comprised in the main of those who still vie for an exotic, well-dressed ripper; relics, if you like, of the Stephen Knight era of ripper study. They’re the ones who typically eschew “profiling”, for whom an “unknown local” is anathema, and who are often anti-progress.

It is clear from an analysis of the Lewis and Hutchinson accounts that the latter was seen by the laundress loitering opposite Miller’s Court at 2.30am on the night of the murder (ask Jon if you don’t believe me!), thus “corroborating” that one aspect of his story and establishing his presence. Not so his reasons for being there or the existence/presence of any man dressed in Astrakhan.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Whatever, Jon. We'll never agree on this, and I don't buy your argument at all.

It has never been my intent to try change anyone's mind. This is the wrong forum for that. The Casebook procedure is more often to circle the wagons and man the trenches to defend whatever theory is being attacked.

From the very start I felt it necessary to identify flawed arguments created to try incriminate Hutchinson. Whether it be from authors or forum members, most negative arguments are not well thought out, and are usually highly exaggerated.
Whether the man lied or not is not the point. Whether the arguments used against him prove, or show he lied is my issue.

All charges like 'he couldn't see what he claimed to see', or 'he waited too long to go to police', or he was 'discredited by police' are easily shown to be false. People will always believe what they want to believe, and in Hutchinson's case minds have been made up. Yet there is still no real consensus against him as to what, if anything, he had done wrong.

[harry]

While legally Hutchinson had done no wrong,one can,Like Aberline,form an opinion from the information available at the time. All three situations you mention Jon,have been studied in detail by a variety of people,and some have voiced an opinion that there exists suspicion that truth is lacking.Nothing wrong or illegal in that.You,if I read you correctly,is of the opinion that we should not harbour those suspicions,as there is no evidence to support them.

[Wickerman]

For the blissfully uninitiated, Jon’s bizarre argument is that Hutchinson three-day delay in coming forward - terminating the moment the inquest came to a close (a “coincidence” apparently) - can be explained away on the basis that he came to realise only too late that his story might just be “relevant”. Prior to that, argues Jon and nobody else, Hutchinson had read only the press accounts mentioning a later morning time of death, somehow missing all of these:

Etiquette normally requires you ask the other party to explain their argument, not impose your own home-grown version. Lest there be some discrepancy in your understanding.
(as if, right?)

It's a three-day delay because, IIRC, you do not accept that he spoke to a policeman on Sunday morning. That would make it only two days.

The argument should be that Hutchinson did know Kelly had been murdered on Friday evening, but the Friday evening press only wrote about a late morning murder.....

"At half past ten this morning, the dead body of a woman with her head almost severed from her body was found in an untenanted outhouse or shed in Dorset court, Dorset street, Commercial street, Spitalfields. It had evidently lain there for some hours, but several scavengers who were in the court at nine o'clock this morning declare the body was not there then."
Evening News, 9 Nov.

Three quotes from the Echo.

"It had evidently been there for some hours, but several scavengers who were in the court at nine o'clock this morning declare that the body was not there then. They might, however, have been mistaken as the place is very dark......

Morris Lewis, a tailor, states that he was playing "pitch and toss" in the court at nine o'clock this morning, and an hour before that he had seen the woman leave the house, and return with some milk. There is no evidence as to who was in the house with her......

"It is confidently stated that the deceased was seen after ten o'clock this morning in company with a paramour, when they were both drinking at the public-house at the corner of Dorset-street. Her name is Mary Jane Kelly, and the man she lived with sells oranges in the streets. After speaking to her in the public-house, he left there for the purpose of vending oranges, and he states that he did not see her again until her corpse was discovered."
Echo, 9 Nov.


"As far as can be ascertained, she was met this morning at a quarter-past eight o'clock. She was then walking down the court with a jug, and returned, shortly after with some milk. In a few minutes she came out of the house and went to a small public-house, where she remained drinking for about half an hour, when she went back to meet her frightful end".
Globe, 9 Nov.

These were the first theories to hit the streets. Not one London evening paper offered an alternate time of death. Saturday morning press was more of the same.
Yes, Mrs Kennedy's story came out in some morning papers, but in all cases caveats were written to cast doubt, or at least caution that such a cry was too common place to cause concern.


Ben, you don't need to offer stories of Kelly being seen late Thursday night, or early Friday morning with a man. There is no suggestion of a time of death. Kelly likely was out late Thursday night/Friday morning anyway, so those stories offer no support for your argument.
But, Hutchinson saw her at 2:00, so she couldn't have been murdered before that.

This one you offered is also of no value...

"This much, however, has been found, that some payment was made by the man for the use of the room; that that payment was received by someone residing in the house; and that the murderer and his victim entered the place in the small hours of Friday morning - between one and two o'clock as near as can be gathered." - East London Observer, 10th November.

Hutchinson saw Kelly between 2-3:00, AFTER that quote above, obviously he knew that was not the time of death.
So, we need to dismiss any early morning ToD theories that place her death BEFORE Hutchinson saw Kelly.
Make sense, right?

Only this one is a contender, but as you well know. Cries of "murder" were so common, the press included the caveat that this cry was ignored by everyone who heard it as being too common place.

"CRY OF "MURDER!" HEARD AT 3.30. Our representative has interviewed a woman named Kennedy, who was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murderer commenced his operation upon his victim". - The Echo, 10th November.

Saturday morning most every prominent daily paper repeated the M.Lewis/Maxwell claims, with some adding their own conclusions that the murder took place after 9:00 am.
And yes, Mrs Kennedy's story, including the usually caveat, was widely published too.

It isn't that Hutchinson selectively read only the late morning reports. It's that they far outnumber the 'Kennedy' early morning theories.
Here's one that you likely agree with.

"Another statement was made last evening my a woman, who asserted that the deceased had been seen by her alive and well, and in company with a man, at the Ringers public house, at the corner of Dorset street, at half past ten yesterday morning. It seems certain, however, that this statement was either due to a mistake, or was one of those mischievous inventions which add so immensely to the labours and worries of the police. It may be regarded as practically certain that the poor woman's life was taken - as in the previous cases - during the night and the frightful hacking of the body was rendered practicable by the fact that the deed was done in a private room in an obscure court."
Daily News, 10 Nov.

Though it can be seen above "as in the previous cases", the early morning ToD is only assumed by the press because that was the case in the previous murder's, not because the police thought this.


I've already posted some examples from Saturday, you can have more if you like.

"JANE KELLY, it is believed, was killed between eight and half-past ten o'clock yesterday morning......"

"KELLY must have been abroad in the streets in company with a man with whom she returned to her lodging only a few minutes before her mutilated body was found....."

"Another statement is to the effect that Kelly was seen in a public-house known as "Ringers," at the corner of Dorset-street and Commercial-street at about ten o'clock yesterday morning,..."
All from the Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov.
There's more, ..and more...

If a late morning murder was not common knowledge by the public, it should have been. They were not getting any other theories to consider.

[Wickerman]

While legally Hutchinson had done no wrong,one can,Like Aberline,form an opinion from the information available at the time.

Absolutely, and I hope you agree that whatever information was available at the time was considerably more than we have today.
Therefore, Abberline's opinion must carry more weight.

All three situations you mention Jon,have been studied in detail by a variety of people,and some have voiced an opinion that there exists suspicion that truth is lacking.Nothing wrong or illegal in that.You,if I read you correctly,is of the opinion that we should not harbour those suspicions,as there is no evidence to support them.

Given what you wrote in the first paragraph, you must also agree that the "variety of people" have very little with which to draw an accurate conclusion.
This is the basis of my objections. Modern accusations are not based on what was known about him at the time.
Abberline's conclusion was.

[Wickerman]

The reality is that Hutchinson is increasingly considered a highly dubious witness, if not a viable person of interest.

I might get the sequence wrong here but if Hinton's theory was satisfactory, there would have been a Wroe theory. And, if the Hinton/Wroe theories were satisfactory, you wouldn't have watered them down to Hutch being nothing more than a time-waster.
It's not like you are all on the same team. You all can't agree with each other, so why should anyone believe either of you?

How many varieties of the Royal Conspiracy theory have there been?
How is the case against Hutchinson any different?

Hutchinson is not a dubious witness. Ill conceived accusations by modern theorists have tried to make him look dubious.
That's the truth of it.

[Wickerman]

Here's how unreliable that supposed "cry of murder" was when estimating a time of death.

"Some residents in the court declare that about a quarter to two (1:45) they heard a faint cry of murder".
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov.

"One woman who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of murder".
Star, 10 Nov.

"....a woman residing at 26 Dorset Street, a house the back rooms of which abut upon the court according to which a cry of murder was heard at three o'clock".
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov.

"Between half past three and four o'clock in the morning Mrs. Kennedy, who passed a very restless night, heard a cry of "Murder" that seemed to come from the opposite side of the court,..."
Evening News, 10 Nov.

The Star had observed, quite correctly, that:
"This story soon became popular, until at least half a dozen women were retelling it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard."
Star 10 Nov.

Clearly then, anyone at the time believing the cry of murder was an indication of Kelly's time of death will be wholly confused with regard to what to believe.
Unless of course there were several cries of murder, all for various reasons.

[RedBundy13]

Is it really so crazy a theory that hutch as the ripper, knows mary,even casually as someone who lives in the immediate area and knows prostitutes, maybe even has heard she is recently single (hes staying a stones throw away in the victoria house) and is keeping an eye out for her. maybe goes by her place? shes occupied, so he waits a while. leaves, comes back to find her guest is gone-you know the rest.

Exactly! Plus, the 1891 census has Joseph Barnett's brother living at...... the Victorian Home. Does that automatically mean he lived there in '88'? Obviously not, but its definitely a piece of circumstantial evidence if he was living there in Oct./Nov. of 1888 pointing towards Hutch.

[RedBundy13]

I just cant get over the idea of hutch, after getting snubbed by Mary, lurking outside her place in the middle of the night near possible time of death.


and apparently so obsessed by her, that even his body language, as if waiting, watching for someone up the court was even so obvious to a passerby.


I mean dosnt that strike you? made the hair stand up the moment i heard of it.

I completely agree! Every once in a while that feeling pops up in me too, where it all just seems to click. And everything starts to make a little more sense than it did the day before.
Would I bet my life on Hutch being JTR? Absolutely not.
Would I bet my house? No.
Would I bet my car? Maybe not...
But would I bet $1,000? YES!
For me, he's the closest suspect yet. His whole police statement is just SOO difficult to buy. I mean seriously, his eyelashes?? Are you kidding me?!?! Too bad they didn't know then what we know now about how some suspects LOVE to put themselves into the investigation looking into their own crimes...

[Sam Flynn]

Hutchinson is not a dubious witness. Ill conceived accusations by modern theorists have tried to make him look dubious.
That's the truth of it.

Not in my case, Jon. I find Hutchinson dubious, but I'm neither a Wroe-ist nor a Hintonist.