Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Simon Wood]

If there was a lamp outside Millers Court you also have to take into account the effect gaslight has on different colours. Would red still look red? If not, how would Hutchinson know it was a red handkercief?

[Wickerman]

I resort to special pleading you say.The Stanley Setty crime was fact.The killer introduced ficticious characters,and he later admitted the fact.It is no more pleading than the numerous articles you and others have submitted in support of Hutchinson's alledged sighting.

That's funny Harry.
That is precisely what special pleading is.
Raising a rare instance in opposition to a more likely example is exactly what special pleading is.
Ask yourself, how often does this occur, then ask yourself what is the likelyhood of it occurring again?

Rather like saying, something like that happened once in a thousand cases, so it could happen again - my case is proven!
Ha, Right!

Offering an example that rarely happens,you state.How often are we faced with a description so complete as that offered by Hutchinson.Yet that rare occurance is offered up time and time again in Hutchinson's defence.

There's a case in the Old Bailey website where a woman was in her Post-Office, when a burglar broke in.
He grabbed her by the throat, she couldn't dry out. She was wrestling with him, he turned and beat her severely about the head & neck with some instrument. So, she was frantic for her life, yet she was able to provide this description:.
"age, 35; height, 5 ft 10 in; hair and slight side whiskers, dark; weak eyes; no eyelashes; dress, dark suit; hard felt hat; carried a black bag."

One suspect in the Stride murder case was described as: "about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes....
He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie."

I'm not suggesting they are the same man. I'm pointing out the attention to detail (eyelashes) which you and some like-minded members find so hard to believe.

[Wickerman]

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".

On his way home?
One character we know of who lived in Paternoster Row, just off Dorset Street, was known to dress like a dandy, even sporting a fake gold watch chain. He lived in the area. We know this guy was not Astrachan, but he was living proof such people did live there who dressed ostentatious for their surroundings.
So why couldn't Astrachan have been just going home?

Well dressed men would have gone to a nice warm brothel in the West end would they not?

Ah, I can see you have a lot to learn about the East End.
West-Enders liked the East end, they could let-loose. Little chance of being seen by their peers.

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

Agreed!
Astrachan was not the killer.

[Wickerman]

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

You first need to know what time Barnett arrived, there's no point in assembling a theory. Let along defending one, when so much is conjecture.

[Wickerman]

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?

Hi Caz.
Yes, sometimes the obvious get's sidestepped in these ill-conceived theories.

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.

The common reason, but another weak attempt, is to claim that because Lewis had seen someone in a wideawake hat, and dark clothes, it had to be Hutchinson - so he had to come forward to clear himself.
I'm not sure if his accusers are trying to fool the reader, or themselves.

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.

Anyone trying to invent a legitimate killer is going to turn to previously published descriptions of suspects seen at other crime scenes.
Three of which were published in the Daily Telegraph the very same day (Monday) Hutchinson came in to Commercial St. station.

Who, is going to invent a suspect no-one has seen before?
Ridiculous.

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?

Yes, I agree. We have no reason to suppose Hutchinson was Duddly do-good.

[Sam Flynn]

Who, is going to invent a suspect no-one has seen before? Ridiculous.

Why should that be ridiculous? People make up stories and experiences very commonly, and for all kinds of reasons.

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi Ben.
Thankyou, at least we can agree that Hutchinson is permitted an occasional white-lie, at least for self preservation and the like.
We might accept people had to lie just to get through the day.

What doesn’t compute at all, however, is his failure to secure any bed that night, despite having money to pay for one.

Right, but we must remember we don't know if the place he usually slept had closed before his arrival in Commercial Street at 2:00, or did he mean he found the place closed after he left Dorset Street at 3:00.
We don't know which.

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.

There is a degree of pride among the homeless. Our city has spent a great deal on providing beds, but a good number of homeless still prefer to stay out all night. Some claim they can't trust the type of characters they see coming in to these places. Some claim there are just too many rules.
All I would say about Hutchinson is, if he had seen lodging houses open but knew their accommodation or the clientele that frequent those places are 'undesirable', he may stay out all night out of preference.

We might think it must be better to be dry, warm and have a bed for the night. But the reality is, we don't walk in their shoes, neither would we want to.
So, we are really in no position to judge.
Hutchinson's preferences are not mentioned, so we shouldn't impose our preferences on him.
It is obvious to me at least that some are inclined to use any little detail in his story against him by twisting it into a negative.

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?

We don't know what time he set off from Romford. Nor if he was intending to rest up along the route, but changed his mind. Was there bad weather along the route that day causing him to seek shelter for a few hours?
There can be very reasonable explanations for him arriving in the East End so late.

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.

Well, we don't have his "entire statement", this would have been given to Abberline in the interrogation.

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....

"Fact"?, did you say "fact"?
What "fact" have you seen that tells you the PC did not make a note of whatever Hutchinson's said to him?
What "fact" do you know of that he did not mention it to his superiors?

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?

We don't know what he told Abberline.

If Hutchinson’s intent was to further incriminate a Jewish hand in the murders....

Maybe it was not his intent?

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.

I don't grandstand for cheerleaders.

I have absolutely no concern whether anyone agrees with me or not.
What concerns me is that I get the known facts out to discuss them. I don't invent these press stories. They exist, and they tell a story.
And, it is a story 'we' have paid little attention to.

Absolutely no-one who is anti-Hutchinson will ever listen to the facts. That has become apparent for years now. All we see is a circling of the wagons & digging-in to defend the theories.
Sadly, a good number of the arguments used in support of the accusations are laughable at best, and not well thought out.

So by all means you carry on dancing & juggling for your tight-nit cheerleaders who can't think for themselves. (yeh, Ben...I agree Ben....Yeh, good post Ben...etc, etc).
It provides a dash of entertainment for the rest of us.

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.

How is his position any different to yours?
You have been presented with a great deal of information but refuse to accept it. Hutchinson can decide for himself, just the same as you do.
I have no doubt he was exposed to both theories on the Saturday, just not on Friday. There was only one theory under discussion on Friday.
I'm inclined to guess the Sunday press tipped the scales in favour of him deciding to share his experience.

[rjpalmer]

Red Handkerchief

[rjpalmer]

Simon, you won't like it, but reread my previous post. The way I look at it, there were basically two types of handkerchiefs in the Victorian era. The classic red paisley handkerchief and the solid white. See the above image.

I don't care what color the gas lamps were projecting, Ray Charles could have told the difference from 40 yards even if it were in monochrome. The shade and the pattern told him what he was looking at. Try it tonight by moonlight,

[Wickerman]

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?

On Goads Plan 120-125 ft from the passage to the end of Dorset street, and there was a wall lamp close to the passage noted here:

" There is another well frequented lodging-house next door to M'Carthy's, and within a yard or two to the entrance to the court is a wall lamp, the light from which is thrown nearly on to the passage."
Irish Times, 10 Nov. 1888.

[Wickerman]

Why should that be ridiculous? People make up stories and experiences very commonly, and for all kinds of reasons.

If someone invents a suspect to re-direct the investigation, the suspect has to be believable. A previously known suspect description, readily available is the most obvious choice.
According to some modern theorists this Astrachan suspect is the opposite - unbelievable.

This isn't just a case of inventing "stories and experiences". Hutchinson is putting his freedom, perhaps his very life on the line here by coming forward.
Only a serious suspect is going to get him out of a jamb.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

So you've decided to go all Trumpian and dismiss basic science?

You and Ray Charles are a real eagle-eyed pair.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

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?

I've often read that some women see things that some men don't.....
Have a great weekend Caz.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

There is very little doubt, in my mind at least, that Hutchinson’s intention was to make his Astrakhan creation appear as suspicious as possible, which is why the physical attributes he bestowed on him were so consistent with many of those levelled at the spectre of “Leather Apron” and other suspected ghouls over the previous months. The “stern” expression, the hat over the eyes, the “walking very softly”, the tightly grasped knife-dimensioned parcel, were all clearly incorporated to fuel popular suspicion in the minds of the press, police and public.

The ripper is the sinister Jew of popular suspicion - was the impression Hutchinson sought encourage, and he couldn’t have been less subtle about it if he tried.

As for Hutchinson’s claim that he had “no suspicion” that the man was the murderer, this was a necessary component given his subsequent uselessness as a means of deterrent in the event that the man attacked Kelly. He could hardly have admitted to suspecting the Astrakhan man of being Jack the Ripper, while conceding at the same time that he did nothing to sound the alarm or otherwise intercept the suspected killer, installing himself instead on the opposite side of the street and waiting to see if his three-year acquaintance gets murdered.

I couldn’t agree more with your assessment that Hutchinson was indeed where he said he was, and that he was no mere publicity-seeker. I disagree, however, that allowing himself to be seen by Sarah Lewis militates against him having been there for nefarious purposes, since the ripper evidently soldiered on regardless after being seen in the victim’s very company on 30th September.

Without wishing to sound like a broken record on the subject of the proposed “robbing” motive, it is inconceivable that Astrakhan entered and exited that particular locale without getting robbed. So intent was Astrakhan on showing off his “thick gold watch chain” - for some unfathomable reason, and ignoring the obvious perils of such a strange decision - that he defied the laws of both gravity and fashion, somehow enabling the chain to “protrude” beneath two overcoats!

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

No.

If Hutchinson had admitted to waiting for an opportunity to rob Astrakhan, Abberline would certainly have mentioned this detail in his report, which was intended for the private consumption of his police superiors.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

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?

Certainly, Caz.

I suspect Abberline’s reaction was one of immediate doubt and suspicion, as evinced by the fact that reports of Hutchinson’s discrediting surfaced very shortly after these revelations involving the Sunday PC appeared in the press. I don’t believe that the very quick succession of these two events can be realistically chalked up to coincidence. It is quite clear that the patently bogus Sunday episode provided police with the incentive for hammering home the ultimate nail in Hutchinson’s credibility coffin.

Have a great weekend yourself!

Cheers,
Ben