Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

Lest there be any residual doubt that Jon’s theory regarding the supposed significance of “dashes”, “commas” and “hyphens” in Lewis’s inquest evidence hasn’t been totally debunked already, which it certainly has, let’s take a look at the Daily Telegraph’s coverage on 13th November:

I can see that your understanding of the process is not up to par for this exchange.
Want to try something simpler?

[Abby Normal]

I have to say that I have never understood the obsession with Hutchinson. Let's say for the sake of argument that his behavior is extremely suspicious and that he is a proven liar. What can we conclude from this exactly? That he killed Mary? That he was most certainly the Ripper? That he fooled the police and that it never occurred to them that he could have been involved in Mary's death? That he was full of **** but completely innocent? Where are people going with this?

Attempts to discredit his story are fine but to what end is this supposed to lead us?

c.d.

Oh i dont know cd. Maybe the identity of jack the ripper? New insights and research into this suspect, like the recent work done by Stephen Sinese.

What i really cant understand is the obsession some have with a perfectly viable suspect in NOT being suspicious. Thats whats mind boggling to me.

Coming out of the woodwork whenever his name mentioned ready to defend him at all costs. But i guess thats what makes it interesting i guess!

[harry]

After Ben's excelent summary,and Sams's enlightening disclosures,there isn't really much to add. Still let's look at the question of risk.'He (Hutchinson)wouldn't risk coming forward'. Well the killer had already taken the biggest risk.THat of murdering Kelly.He didn't have to kill,but he did.After killing,he took the risk of staying and mutilating the victim.He didn't have to,but he did.
If Kelly was a ripper Killing(I believe it was)he took the risk of killing indoors,argueably a riskier undertaking than killing outdoors.He changed his method.He didn't have to but he did.I could expand on the risks,but it's enough to show that risk taking was a feature of the ripper crimes.It was a characteristic of the ripper to take risks.

Now what is the Characteristics of many criminals after commiting a criminal act.It is to avoid detection,and in cases where the criminal fears he/she can be connected,to supply an alibi.Donald Hulme(I believe the surname is correct)although admitting being present at the Stanley Setty murder,blamed the killing on an unamed person who he(Hulme)claimed was present.
That person was never found either,nor was he believed to exist.

So I do not believe we can allow it would have been too risky for Hutchinson to have come forward,nor exclude the possibility that Aman was an imanginey alibi for Hutchinson.

[Sam Flynn]

Attempts to discredit his story are fine but to what end is this supposed to lead us?

If Hutchinson's story was untrue, then Mr Astrakhan is eliminated as a suspect... on grounds of non-existence.

[Sam Flynn]

But wouldn't they have only been talking about what was in the press?

Hardly. The grapevine would have been buzzing with gossip aplenty, entirely independently of the press.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It may surprise many to know, that I am with CD, and believe Hutchinson was simply a witness.and that he neither lied , or exaggerated, in his statement.
What we make of it individually we have to decide.
It seems very unlikely that a man dressed in respectable clothing, that had Hutchinson curious, would be the person to butcher a woman with a knife, dressed like that.
Was this the Rippers normal means of dress when he was out searching for a victim.?
Taking this into account, and the morning sightings, I would suggest that Mr A, was long gone by dawn, and Kelly was very much alive, leaving her killer someone she met around 9.am
I would suggest the police knew far more then we know today, and Jack was likely to have been the man Maxwell saw talking to Kelly outside Ringers.
I still am interested in the account that Mary was in the pub when a man beckoned her out.. Could this have been her killer, and was who Maxwell saw ?.
Albeit this was a hour earlier then the report gives,
Or maybe that man, initially spoke to Mary outside, and returned , and beckoned her out of the pub a bit later.
As for the time period,. I have never understood the opinion it would have taken a considerable time. to mutilate . Look what happened to Eddowes, in a couple of minutes,?
Regards Richard.

[Busy Beaver]

CD post 689- Quite agree with you!

Busy Beaver

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Hutchinson's story was untrue, then Mr Astrakhan is eliminated as a suspect... on grounds of non-existence.

And I’d suggest Gareth that if Hutchinson’s story was true then we can almost certainly eliminate Astrakhan as a suspect. What kind of idiot would go on to kill Mary after having a guy stare at him to the point where he stooped down to look directly into his face and then watch as he disappeared into Miller’s Court with his victim?

It doesn’t say much for a Ripper suspect when we can say that he was either extremely unlikely or non-existent.

[packers stem]

Did Barnett go to the police station first? Not according to his Penny Illustrated Press interview;

PIP 17 Nov
Next day I heard there had been a murder in Miller's court, and on my way there I met my sister's brother in law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the court, and there saw the police inspector, and told him who I was, and where I had been the previous night. They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally, finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free.

Yet he told the Star on the 10th

He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window.

Which ties in perfectly with the telegraph of the same date , the one from the home office files .

"He was indoors yesterday morning when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset Street , but he did not know at first who the victim was .
He voluntarily went to the police , who , after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct ."

It's just a bit of the obvious here guys but ....
If he entered the police station it's obvious he would be taken straight to the court or if he'd have gone to the court he would have been kept there for some considerable time .... why ?
Because that's where all the inspectors were for a couple of hours ....
All of them
Barnett wouldn't have been interviewed by the desk sergeant at Commercial Street would he

[Abby Normal]

And I’d suggest Gareth that if Hutchinson’s story was true then we can almost certainly eliminate Astrakhan as a suspect. What kind of idiot would go on to kill Mary after having a guy stare at him to the point where he stooped down to look directly into his face and then watch as he disappeared into Miller’s Court with his victim?

It doesn’t say much for a Ripper suspect when we can say that he was either extremely unlikely or non-existent.

If hutchs story is true than Aman is probably jack the ripper.

[Michael W Richards]

Why the accomplice would leave before the one he is presumably standing lookout for, returned to the street, has not been explained.

Perhaps it was the accomplices job to watch the courtyard until it was dead quiet and then notify the killer all was clear...or perhaps the accomplice was to ensure that no-one followed the couple into the courtyard, once he was satisfied no-one did, he left. Perhaps Sarah saw Wideawake waiting for Blotchy to come out safely, and Mary never really left her room again after she entered it just before midnight. Perhaps the story is intended to creatively insert a man police were already looking for as the primary suspect....I think if you allow yourself to analyze the possibilities that still exist here you would agree with the point Jon.

But the point is moot, what was done with Hutchinsons statement is that the watching man became the ally and an astrakhan chap, the suspect. If not intentionally done, then it just shows us how witness evidence can redirect and potentially misdirect so easily.

[Michael W Richards]

If Hutchinson's story was untrue, then Mr Astrakhan is eliminated as a suspect... on grounds of non-existence.

Thank god we have at least one absolute.

[Abby Normal]

Perhaps it was the accomplices job to watch the courtyard until it was dead quiet and then notify the killer all was clear...or perhaps the accomplice was to ensure that no-one followed the couple into the courtyard, once he was satisfied no-one did, he left. Perhaps Sarah saw Wideawake waiting for Blotchy to come out safely, and Mary never really left her room again after she entered it just before midnight. Perhaps the story is intended to creatively insert a man police were already looking for as the primary suspect....I think if you allow yourself to analyze the possibilities that still exist here you would agree with the point Jon.

But the point is moot, what was done with Hutchinsons statement is that the watching man became the ally and an astrakhan chap, the suspect. If not intentionally done, then it just shows us how witness evidence can redirect and potentially misdirect so easily.

yup. and if hutch was a lookout hes not going to give an account of his fake suspect leaving together with him. all we have is hutches story so for all we know is he did wait for his (real)accomplice to come out.

[Ben]

You’ve suddenly become rather adversarial, RJ, which is a shame because initially you were enjoying the discussion and intended “no mockery”. Now you’re calling people “cheerleaders” and dismissing the contributions of those who disagree with you as “self-serving gibberish”. I accept that much of what is discussed here would be anathema to an ardent Tumblety supporter, such as yourself, but we can still play friendly.

It isn’t particularly problematic for me that you’re unconvinced by my suggestion as to why Hutchinson, if the ripper, “paused” after the Kelly murder. It was admittedly speculative, but fairly reasonable I thought, and the gaps between the murders were certainly getting longer. What’s more important, however, is that it is by no means axiomatic that serial offenders never stop unless they die or become incarcerated. It’s as baseless and outdated as the notion that Kelly “must” have been the final victim.

As for the comparisons with Long and the Lawende, I can only agree with what others have said; it’s an invalid comparison insofar as neither of them took such an inexplicably active interest in victim and client. That Hutchinson made them his sole focus for the best part of an hour renders all the more perplexing his failure to relate his tale at the earliest opportunity.

I also agree with what others have said about the unlikelihood of Hutchinson’s description being an amalgamation of the Friday night and Sunday sightings.

If Hutchinson was using this alleged second sighting as an opportunity to confirm, amongst other things, that the man’s tie-pin was indeed of a horseshoe shape, why would he then state that he only "fancied" it was the same individual from the Miller's Court encounter, but "could not be certain"? Was he seriously wondering that it might have been a different person wearing identical clothes and accessories?

Regards,
Ben

[Herlock Sholmes]

If hutchs story is true than Aman is probably jack the ripper.

Surely Aman would have to qualify as one of the stupidest killers in history Abby? He has Hutchinson not just spotting him and Mary from a distance but right up close. And not just passing them in the street but stooping down to look right into his face, immediately indicating to the ‘ripper’ that he was suspicious of him in some way. The killer is then seen by Hutchinson taking his future victim into the place where he kills her. Surely this isn’t believable?