Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Ben]

One common result of picking up an unfortunate was that she would lead the client to a dark alley where accomplices would jump the client and rob him of all his possessions

Indeed, Jon, and Astrakhan must have been doubly wary of that outcome considering that Stoopy McStoop-Face had brazenly gawped at his mug a couple of minutes earlier. What would have assured him that no robbery was intended? I can’t imagine “you will be comfortable” would have done the trick.

(Strictly hypothetical, of course. In reality, Astrakhan man would certainly have been accosted if sauntering the district at that hour, dressed as Hutchinson described)

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

It's not just "your suggestion" though Christer. The most common criticism against Hutch on this point is to argue - "there's no other explanation but that he must have lied."
That, is conjuring up a solution for which there is no evidence for.

A-hah! Well, then I of course agree with you. But I would prefer if you worded yourself "Itīs not your suggestion" instead of "Itīs not just your suggestion" - because my suggestion has very little to do with any conjuring at all. There is but one effort made by the participants of the drama left to us, when it comes to finding an explanation to Hutchinsons lowered impact as a witness, and that is Dewīs mentioning that he believed Hutchinson got the days wrong. Following that lead is - in my view - travelling as far as possible from the paths of conjure.

Yes, I am well aware of your view. Which is why you also can't accept Sarah Lewis seeing Hutchinson in Dorset street. In my view this does stand in the way of your "wrong day" argument.
If Abberline had said at the time what Dew wrote 50 years later, then you would have a reasonable argument. Even Dew was not convinced his "wrong day" argument was applicable to Hutch, he presented it to explain Maxwell's sighting.

It nevertheless remains the one suggestion that we have from those in charge and at the scene, Jon. What I think we are looking at is a Dew who, fifty years on, was still somewhat flummoxed by the affair. I believe that Hutchinson was asked about whether he saw any woman passing down the passage and denied it, and I believe that he quite possibly was also asked about where he had stood, and told the police that he never left the corner of the court. And I think that this was what made the police decide that he had not been in place when he said he had, partly because he should have seen Lewis if he was, and partly because Lewis was adamant that HER guy was on the other side of the street. But I also think that Hutchinson pressed the point that he was absolutely certain that he had the right day, and that Dew accordingly could not say that it was a certain thing that Hutchinson mistook the days - but that he always felt that this was the only logical solution. and I think it is precisely that.

I fail to see, by the way, how Lewis not seeing Hutchinson in Dorset Street stands in the way of "my wrong day argument". I would have thought that it was something that was of the essence for it...?

[Ben]

Not to labour the point but there were thousands of people named George Hutchinson between 1880 - 1890 in the UK.
A thousand alone lived in London, approx. 500 of them in London in 1888.

Can you provide some sources for these figures, Jon? They seem astronomically high to me, and in the absence of an “1888 census” I don’t see how you could have ascertained the number of George Hutchinsons living in London in that year.

I don't intend to be mean to Mr Senise, but if you can't prove a factual connection between your particular choice of George Hutchinson, and the witness from 1888, then why bother?

Which is a bit like saying “why bother” writing a suspect book unless the author can first “prove” that his man was Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Not "two people" Christer, two MEN.
No-one seriously considered the killer was a woman, so he didn't say how many women he saw. He told the press he saw no-one suspicious - no other MEN.

Sorry, but I donīt buy into that, Jon. When somebody says "I saw a PC and a man entering a lodging house, but no one else", I take that as confirmation that no representative of either gender emerged. I am of the meaning that if somebody had pushed by you, more or less, to enter a passage you were monitoring, then you would mention that, since that person would have been directly connected to the very spot where a murder was committed - woman or not.

Why should this woman (Lewis) be of any significance?

Why should she NOT be? Were there no female villains in the victorian society? Could she not have been involved in some capacity? How would Hutchinson know?
The path of accepting in retrospect that Hutchinson had no reason to mention Lewis is one that I will not walk with you, Iīm afraid.

Ah, but you have a vested interest in not acknowledging he had the right day

Do I? I really donīt think so. I think Lechmere was the killer, but I believe he quite possibly may have entered Marys room after Hutchinson left - even if he WAS there on the night.
And I would like to think that people can see their way through to trusting that I can judge things fairly anyway.

[Ben]

if you were going to invent a believable story i dont think you wpuld describe a toff like that.. remember this was Dorset street the roughest street in London.. a man like that would never be there so to use a character like that would be ridiculous.. so i think that it must be true.

Slightly iffy logic there, Leighton.

If a story seems “ridiculous” and “unbelievable” the simplest explanation is that it’s false - Occam’s Razor and all that. It’s somewhat fallacious to argue that the less believable a story, the greater the chance of it being true. It’s another appeal to the “If he lied, he wouldn’t have told such an unconvincing lie, therefore he must be telling the truth” school of thought.

[Ben]

Indeed ben. And considering what happened the night of the double event and the risk he took in bringing the bloodied apron and leaving it where he took the time to write the gsg, then one can see hutchs involving himself as a witness in the next murder as an escalation of his subterfuge.

That’s precisely as I see it, Abby.

[Leighton Young]

A lot of people poo poo Hutchinsons description and i was inclined towards this oppinion until recently.. if you were going to invent a believable story i dont think you wpuld describe a toff like that.. remember this was Dorset street the roughest street in London.. a man like that would never be there so to use a character like that would be ridiculous.. so i think that it must be true.. this would also account for the detailed description... he would be fascinated by how out of place he looked and hence he would both follow him and get a very good description of the man..

[Wickerman]

Hm. I am not all that fond of the phrase about "conjuring up a reason by itself" in relation to my suggestion for the diminished value seemingly attaching to Hutchinsons story some time after it was furnished.

It's not just "your suggestion" though Christer. The most common criticism against Hutch on this point is to argue - "there's no other explanation but that he must have lied."
That, is conjuring up a solution for which there is no evidence for.

On the whole, I can see nothing standing in the way for the suggestion of a mistaken day, other than peopleīs unwillingness to accept that it could have happened. It could well have, not least if Hutchinson jumped inbetween jobs and working hours - and it probably did, as far as Iīm concerned.

Yes, I am well aware of your view. Which is why you also can't accept Sarah Lewis seeing Hutchinson in Dorset street. In my view this does stand in the way of your "wrong day" argument.
If Abberline had said at the time what Dew wrote 50 years later, then you would have a reasonable argument. Even Dew was not convinced his "wrong day" argument was applicable to Hutch, he presented it to explain Maxwell's sighting.

[Abby Normal]

Not "two people" Christer, two MEN.
No-one seriously considered the killer was a woman, so he didn't say how many women he saw. He told the press he saw no-one suspicious - no other MEN.



Why should this woman (Lewis) be of any significance?



Ah, but you have a vested interest in not acknowledging he had the right day

hi wicky

Not "two people" Christer, two MEN.
No-one seriously considered the killer was a woman, so he didn't say how many women he saw. He told the press he saw no-one suspicious - no other MEN.

so I guess this explains why hutch didn't mention sarah Lewis?

glad that's been taken care of because a lot of folks try to use him not mentioning sarah lewis as some kind of reason to discredit her, or say she couldn't have been a reason why he came forward, etc.

[Abby Normal]

Indeed ben. And considering what happened the night of the double event and the risk he took in bringing the bloodied apron and leaving it where he took the time to write the gsg, then one can see hutchs involving himself as a witness in the next murder as an escalation of his subterfuge.

one of which, of course, also implicated jews

[Wickerman]

The problem is that we have a combination of Hutchinson saying that he saw two people AND NOBODY ELSE, whereas he does not mention the one person who would have come very close to him and walked right past his nose.

Not "two people" Christer, two MEN.
No-one seriously considered the killer was a woman, so he didn't say how many women he saw. He told the press he saw no-one suspicious - no other MEN.

If there was somebody else around, much further away and of no significance at all, I could swallow that such a person was forgotten - but not Lewis.

Why should this woman (Lewis) be of any significance?

Sorry, but to me, the ommission to mention her tells us that Hutchinson never saw her. To me, it is really that simple.

Ah, but you have a vested interest in not acknowledging he had the right day

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

A point of order.

Robert Anderson was in Room 13 Millers Court for a part of the time that Bond was conducting his preliminary examination of "Mary Jane Kelly."

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

Yes, and Anderson being there part of the time suggests what, to you?

[Abby Normal]

Hi BB,



And yet the serial killers who have “thrown themselves into the foray (sic)” by attempting to derail the investigation through some form of subterfuge have traditionally been amongst the more organised and intelligent, whereas the ones who carry out “blitz” style attacks and ensure that prior victim contact and inveiglement are kept to a studied minimum are those who are perceived as lacking in confidence, disorganised, and with lower IQs.

I don’t see anything in the killer’s pre-crime behaviour at other murder scenes that would argue against the likelihood of him coming forward under a false guise, as other serial killers have done, if the circumstances allowed for and encouraged such behaviour. He certainly didn’t have trouble using deception to lure his victims, as Lawende’s evidence (and others’) makes fairly clear.

All the best,
Ben

Indeed ben. And considering what happened the night of the double event and the risk he took in bringing the bloodied apron and leaving it where he took the time to write the gsg, then one can see hutchs involving himself as a witness in the next murder as an escalation of his subterfuge.

[Ben]

Excellent find, Abby!

So no reason at all, in other words, to assume that Abberline’s recollections of the ripper eyewitness evidence were tinkered specifically to address claims in an article he hadn’t read, and every reason to conclude from his comments that he had already compiled his musings on the eyewitness evidence (sans any mention of Hutchinson) in a document intended for the consumption of Melville Macnaghten.

Glad that’s finally sorted!

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

And all of this under his own name, George Hutchinson. Why exactly would he do that, Ben

Why wouldn’t he?

Notwithstanding the extremely close proximity of the Victoria Home to the McKenzie murder scene, there was nothing him to link him directly to that murder. So what danger would have arisen from using his own name? The police weren’t exactly monitoring the docks to see if discredited ripper witnesses were attempting to fake seaman credentials in order to secure passage to Australia.

Two years training was required of a genuine able seaman, not a member of a “bodge” crew wiling to make up the numbers in the absence of the actual professionals, who were then on strike.

All the best,
Ben