Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Scott Nelson]

Nobodies perfect.

Is this a precusor to consteration?

[Busy Beaver]

I can't imagine why a well dressed man showing of his gold watch is going to venture down a notorious Whitechapel street or Close in the pouring rain just to go with a local "prostitute". Well dressed men would have gone to a nice warm brothel in the West end would they not? I also doubt that Aman is a disguise of the Ripper, as this look just draws far too much attention as we all know and if it was attention the Ripper really wanted, in the style of Hey Look at Me! Then he probably would have been caught long ago. The Ripper's focus was on killing- catch me if you can or when you can sort of thing. Look at my killing skills.

Busy Beaver

[packers stem]

In the 19th century, the police communicated by 'runners', for want of a better word. Constables had to run between the crime scene and the station to carry messages back and forth.
Unless there was telegraph available, which perhaps not at Millers Court

No-one is going to second-guess the Scotland Yard inspector (Abberline).
Their job is to inform him that the victims partner has turned up at the station. Abberline will decide where he wants to interview him, in the court or at the station.
A simple response by Abberline like, "Great, fetch him 'ere", would suffice.
(Thats 'ere not hair)

You're looking for a point to accept in your mind where there really isn't one .
If ,as you suggest ,a runner was used , then it would have been immediate so we're only talking about a delay of minutes .... we're still talking about an early time here .
Your 'runner' would have added maybe 10 minutes onto the obvious answer that the officer who first encountered Barnett would have taken him straight there .
We know Barnett was at the court for two and a half hours , it would not have been after his long interview ... the interview would have been at the police station
Barnett was clearly at Miller's court before he was interviewed as he identified the body by peeping through the window.
I can't see an issue here , we have all the data we need to give us a clear and obvious timeline

[caz]

The only potentially dubious part of Hutchinson's story, for me, is the waiting around for so long.
Hutch did pay a great deal of attention to this man, detailing all his 'bling'. I find it quite reasonable to allow that he had robbery in mind when the man left Millers Court.

The story he told police:
" I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away".
Begs the question, "why?"
What was he going to do once this man came out?
Abberline had to ask "why did you stay there for so long?"

I don't believe the reason would be to ask Kelly if he can stay the night. That would be like me taking a day off work so someone could rest in my house. It isn't going to happen, she has bills to pay, food & drink to buy, and the night is the most lucrative time for her to earn money. Especially, as she has a bed in a private room.

No, Kelly wouldn't be letting him stay. I would expect him to know that, if he knew her well enough. So what reason did he give Abberline?

On the other hand, look at Mortimer in Berner St. she stood at her door just watching the world go by.
Before radio's that is what the poorer people did for entertainment. So Hutchinson standing around, having nowhere else to stay, is not all that odd for the times.
Even in the 1900's it was common for people to stand or put a chair outside on the street and just sit watching everyone else.
Looking at certain aspects of this case from our 'modern' perspective can give a false impression. Today, we don't need to stand at the door for entertainment.

Hi Jon,

The very fact that Hutch volunteered to the police that he had waited around for so long, apparently just to see if the couple would come out again [as you say: why?], would seem to point against him making the whole thing up for fame or fortune. Why would anyone put themselves in this situation unless they were really there?

Now, I don't believe for one second it was because Hutch had murdered Kelly, after foolishly allowing his face to be seen by a nosey neighbour, and then felt the need or desire to tell a tale of cocknbull to the police and the press.

He could simply have been curious, if the man looked a cut above the men he assumed Kelly would normally attract. That could also have been the reason he didn't suspect this man of being up to no good at the time. Kelly needed money and this charmer, who shared a joke and a hanky with her, looked good for it. Like Ben, Hutch may have associated the recent murders with someone at the opposite end of the spectrum [everyone then, as now, had their own ideas], in which case it might not have dawned on him to look at Flash Harry in that way - until he learned all about Kelly's 'orrible murder and began to have a rethink. Too often it is argued that Hutch made up Flash Harry in accordance with his own belief - or profile - of the type of man the police were seeking. But it would have to be the other way round if he saw the man as he described him but had a very different personal take at the time of what the murderer would look like.

I do wonder if Hutch waited that long because he expected Flash Harry to be chucked out sooner rather than later, and for Kelly to follow soon afterwards, looking for her next source of income. Was Hutch hoping to 'relieve' the man of enough cash or valuables to give straight to Kelly himself, in return for a little respite from the weather and whatever else was on offer?

Did he hint as much to Abberline under his interrogation, about which so few details have come down to us?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Joshua,

I doubt it would have made any great difference which force this particular PC belonged to. The necessity to follow up a story of Hutchinson’s potential significance would have been very deeply ingrained in his professional obligation and duty; Met or City, it wouldn’t have altered such a mindset.

There is very little evidence to suggest that the police preferred a later time of death, and plenty of indications to the contrary. Even if they did plump for the former, it wouldn’t constitute anything like a valid reason for “discrediting” an account.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I don’t have the slightest problem with Hutchinson concealing from Kelly the fact that he wasn’t entirely “spent out” from his Romford rambles, and I agree that he was probably in possession sufficient funds for his accommodation, at least.

What doesn’t compute at all, however, is his failure to secure any bed that night, despite having money to pay for one. Nobody is going to convince me that all lodging houses within, say, a mile’s radius of Dorset Street were full up. The Victoria Home alone could accommodate 500 men per night. As I mentioned earlier, only the Victoria Home closed its doors at a relatively early hour (1.00am) to those who hadn’t pre-purchased their bed tickets.

If Cooney’s had a later cut-off point at 2.30, we might imagine that Hutchinson, a local frequenter of doss houses, would have been aware of this; in which case, why squander a precious hour in a fruitless vigil outside Dorset Street when lodging houses such as Cooney’s were in the process of closing their doors? In fact, more to the point, why walk 12 miles in cold and miserable conditions when he could have dossed down in Romford, thereby avoiding the problem of Spitalfields’ lodging houses all filling up and closing by the time he arrived?

If Hutchinson’s intended lodgings that night were at premises other than the Victoria Home, it was relevant to his entire statement and would thus have been mentioned; which is why all other witnesses had their addresses recorded for the night of their experiences. Hutchinson would most certainly not have been any exception.

“A PC stationed at the market is not permitted to leave (as evidenced in the Chapman case)”

But he IS permitted to make a note of Hutchinson, his address, and the key particulars of his story. He IS permitted to alert his superiors at the earliest opportunity. Indeed, he is morally and professionally obliged to do both, and the fact that he didn’t suggests that either the police had one monstrously negligent copper on its force, or far more likely, Hutchinson invented the entire episode.

Again, nobody has yet addressed the most pressing question of all associated with these alleged Sunday events: why did Hutchinson mention nothing about them during his first “interrogation” with the police?

If Hutchinson’s intent was to further incriminate a Jewish hand in the murders (expanding on earlier efforts in that regard, if Hutchinson himself was the murderer), he could have done considerable worse than “placing” his fictional monster on the street most closely associated with the Jewish community.

Finally, the responses you’ve received to date indicate that it’s a resounding thumbs down to the “Hutchinson was influenced by the reported late morning time of death” theory. It just doesn’t work, since it relies on Hutchinson only being exposed to those reports, and none of the numerous reports of a “murder” cry that was heard much earlier in the morning, at a time consistent with Hutchinson’s sighting.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

We can criticise the PC, or rather conclude that Hutchinson made him up, on the basis that he would have been wretchedly derelict in his duty for failing even to make a note of Hutchinson and his story when the latter allegedly approached him on Sunday. It was not the responsibility of the bobby on beat to determine which witnesses were genuine and which weren’t...

...A constable worth his salt would not have been content simply to “advise” a witness to go to the station and hope that he does so - that’s obviously nonsense, regardless of his other duties that day. At the very least, it would have been incumbent upon him to record Hutchinson’s key particulars in a notebook, and detain him until such time as an “available” officer could escort him to the nearest station. What you describe as acceptable behaviour for a uniformed police officer would, in fact, amount to borderline criminal negligence.

Hi Ben,

This was part of a response to Jon.

Your reaction is to accuse Hutch of making up the PC, because if he was telling the truth the PC would have been guilty of 'borderline criminal negligence', and you find this unthinkable.

Could you therefore explain what you think Abberline's reaction would/should have been, on learning about Hutch's claim to have told this PC what he had witnessed?

Would his reaction have been the same as yours and, if not, why not?

Have a good weekend!

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I presume you've all stopped to consider the red handkerchief at some point .... the colour of which couldn't possibly be seen from the corner of Commercial/Dorset Streets due to distance and lighting

Is this a good argument? It is often claims to be. But I remember when I was a kid in the early 1970s when the red bandana was making a comeback, and all red hankies had exactly the same paisley pattern. The way I imagine it, 99% of all hankies were probably either solid white or the ‘classic’ red paisley with the easily recognizable pattern. So even in ambient light or in monochrome, Hutchinson would have been able to instantly realize what he was seeing. Or at least he thought he recognized what he was seeing. There is no way this proves he was lying.

[rjpalmer]

A killer’s propensity to come forward or otherwise is entirely dependent on whether or not he even found himself in the type of compromising circumstance that might encourage such a preemptive strategy. If he does not inject himself into the investigation, it may owe simply to the absence of such a circumstance, as opposed to having an intrinsic disinclination to do so.

You do, realize, Ben, that you’ve just undermined your entire argument?
A major plank in the Hutchinson theory is your claim that “serial killers,” by nature, will “inject themselves” into an investigation. This is what allegedly allows such insightful profilers as John Douglas to identify them, whereas us average schmucks are too dense to see it. It is a behavioral trait to be aware of and watch for. Yet, you now state directly and unequivocally that this, after all, is not true, they don’t really have any such innate need; they only inject themselves into an investigation if they are forced into it by “compromising circumstance(s).” It seems to me that you have just weakened one of your core beliefs.
And no, you hit the nail on the head. There are no quantitative studies that I am aware of, and this is precisely what allows people to make claims about alleged behaviors based on what I call ‘war stories’ rather than on anything that resembles the scientific method.


And the funny thing is that I am the last person that would deny that murderers of this type don’t have some strange fascination about their own crimes.

Could you therefore explain what you think Abberline's reaction would/should have been, on learning about Hutch's claim to have told this PC what he had witnessed?

Would his reaction have been the same as yours and, if not, why not?

Ouch. She's got you over a barrel, Ben. I gotta run. Have a good weekend.

[Abby Normal]

Is this a good argument? It is often claims to be. But I remember when I was a kid in the early 1970s when the red bandana was making a comeback, and all red hankies had exactly the same paisley pattern. The way I imagine it, 99% of all hankies were probably either solid white or the ‘classic’ red paisley with the easily recognizable pattern. So even in ambient light or in monochrome, Hutchinson would have been able to instantly realize what he was seeing. Or at least he thought he recognized what he was seeing. There is no way this proves he was lying.

how far was the corner of Dorset street from the entrance to millers court and do we know if there was a lamp anywhere near the entrance of millers court?

[Abby Normal]

You do, realize, Ben, that you’ve just undermined your entire argument?
A major plank in the Hutchinson theory is your claim that “serial killers,” by nature, will “inject themselves” into an investigation. This is what allegedly allows such insightful profilers as John Douglas to identify them, whereas us average schmucks are too dense to see it. It is a behavioral trait to be aware of and watch for. Yet, you now state directly and unequivocally that this, after all, is not true, they don’t really have any such innate need; they only inject themselves into an investigation if they are forced into it by “compromising circumstance(s).” It seems to me that you have just weakened one of your core beliefs.
And no, you hit the nail on the head. There are no quantitative studies that I am aware of, and this is precisely what allows people to make claims about alleged behaviors based on what I call ‘war stories’ rather than on anything that resembles the scientific method.


And the funny thing is that I am the last person that would deny that murderers of this type don’t have some strange fascination about their own crimes.

Ouch. She's got you over a barrel, Ben. I gotta run. Have a good weekend.

Hi RJ

In my view, depending on the circs of the individual criminal and there own mind set, they could inject themselves for a variety of reasons. They think they've been seen, so feel they need to come forward to explain there presence, They hear that there name has come up, they want to mess with the police, heighten the thrill factor, etc.

My personal view if hadn't been for Sarah Lewis we never would have heard of Hutch or Aman.

again though I concede most criminals would keep a low profile.

[Sam Flynn]

The very fact that Hutch volunteered to the police that he had waited around for so long, apparently just to see if the couple would come out again [as you say: why?], would seem to point against him making the whole thing up for fame or fortune. Why would anyone put themselves in this situation unless they were really there?

To make his story sound really good, better than the "Leather Apron" stories and the accounts of previous witnesses? It's a bit like the Four Yorkshiremen sketch...

1: I saw a foreign-looking man with a dark moustache talking to the victim in the street.

2: That's nothing! I saw a man with a dark moustache pick up the victim, and he were carrying a funny looking bag in his hand.

3: So what? I saw a dark-moustached man wearing a red neckerchief and carrying a long parcel pick up the victim. I watched them for three minutes, then they both disappeared up a dark alley, and - you know what? - I could 'ardly hear his footsteps on 't cobbles!

4: Right. I saw a dark-moustached, surly, Jewish-looking man wi' a red 'anky and a long parcel - wi' a strap! - talking to 't victim for a few minutes under 't street lamp, before quietly walking back to her room, and the bugger were still in there when I left nearly an hour later!

1: Aye! You try telling the ripperologists of today that... and some of them won't believe you!

[Robert St Devil]

how far was the corner of Dorset street from the entrance to millers court and do we know if there was a lamp anywhere near the entrance of millers court?

I've been wondering the same, Abby. Not just for the sighting of the bandana but also for how loud Mary would have had to have spoken for him to hear her remark from the corner of Dorset St. I get, from character description, that Mary's loud when she's drunk and that part is consistent in Hutchs story. But would it have been loud enough for the court or Elizabeth Prater to hear?

[Simon Wood]

Approximately 120 feet from the Ringers corner of Commercial Street to the Millers Court entrance.

[Abby Normal]

Approximately 120 feet from the Ringers corner of Commercial Street to the Millers Court entrance.

thanks Simon
40 yards- might be pushin it to be able to see a red hanky, but if there was a lamp by millers court entrance maybe.