Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Ben]

If Hutchinson’s intended lodgings on the night of the murder were located anywhere other than at the Victoria Home, the establishment listed on his statement, the police would certainly have made a note of them, as they did with all other witnesses. I’ll say it a trillion times more if necessary.

“We do not know when he set off, or why, or whether he even intended to go straight to his "usual place", where ever that was.”

The onus is squarely upon you, then, to conjure up an at least moderately convincing scenario that would explain his decision to walk those 12 miles to Whitechapel knowing full well that his “usual” lodgings would close an hour before his anticipated arrival. You made the exceptionally unconvincing suggestion that bad weather caused him to “shelter” somewhere en route (but that he had some peculiar aversion, for some reason, to dossing down wherever this shelter was), but I’m hopeful that you can come up with something a little more plausible.

Hutchinson was not “homeless”, Jon. If you accept the man at his word, he walked 12 miles in attempt to secure lodgings, which he had ample funds to pay for, according to you.

If he was of the absurd mindset that you’re unsuccessfully trying to project onto him; that it was a strict, arbitrary choice between his “usual” lodgings or walking the streets all night (never, heaven forfend, one of the many hundreds of other houses in the area), why did he bother with the 12 mike walk at all if he knew that “option #1”, his usual place, wouldn’t have been open?

“You don't 'think' the PC made any notes, you don't 'think' he told his superior?”

Well, I’m dying to know what the alternative could possibly be. I’m all ears, Jon. You do understand, presumably, that when Hutchinson initiated contact with the police on 12th, it was the very first time the police hierarchy had ever heard Hutchinson’s name in connection with the ripper investigation? Or are you now disputing even this?

If a “superior” had heard about Hutchinson on Sunday, he would have sent a detective immediately to the Victoria Home to track him down.

Yet, time and time again you have been educated on the fact that witnesses in murder cases, whether friends, or neighbours of the victim have not come forward for days, or weeks or even years

I must have missed the part of this “education” that addressed the cases of witnesses who only warp out of “reluctant to get involved” mode the moment the public inquest closes - the same inquest at which it is revealed that the witness was himself “witnessed” by a passer-by on the night of the crime. It’s almost as if the two events were related.

Nah, couldn’t be.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

I hope you won’t object to my addressing to your post to Simon several pages ago regarding the Jewish appearance of the suspect. Such is the level of current interest attaching to all things Hutchinson these days that there is often a danger of important observations getting buried ‘neath the rubble of swiftly accumulating posts.

No, I do not agree in the slightest that Hutchinson would have been better served by inventing a lower class Jew if his intent was to incriminate that particular community. You’ll remember that Hutchinson’s alleged motivation for loitering 45 minutes outside the court entrance - as initially accepted by the police - was that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed (i.e. as Astrakhan) in Kelly’s company.

Remove the “well-dressed” aspect and Hutchinson’s excuse for loitering in that location, where he was evidently witnessed by Lewis, was effectively kaput. In other words, he was compelled to make his villainous Jew appear as conspicuously out-of-place as possible in order to justify his sustained interest. And it worked, initially at least.

I also don’t see why it should follow that anyone intent on incriminating a Jewish hand in the murders was required to assign him a fictional curly beard and sideburns. More effective, surely, to utilise previously existing “sinister” depictions of Jewish ripper suspects, such as “Leather Apron”, whose face by all accounts was devoid of both a beard and sideburns.

No; as a means of deflecting suspicion in the direction of the already scapegoated Jewish community whilst superficially “legitimising” his interest in the man’s association with Kelly, the Astrakhan fabrication did the trick nicely.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

That may have been a conclusion that he came to at a later time, but his immediate reaction, as I recall, was to document a belief that Hutchinson's story was true.

Quite so, Bridewell, but Caz was asking about Abberline’s likely reaction upon reading Hutchinson’s press disclosures, specifically the latter’s claim to have informed a PC about the episode on Sunday. I suggested that the inspector’s response was one of intense scepticism, observing also the “coincidence” of Hutchinson’s reported discrediting following hot on the heels of his press account being published.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

This is a post-dated reply - Do not open 'til the Morning.

If we’re intent on revisiting Isaacs, I would appreciate it if you quoted me properly. Your erroneous claim, remember, was that Isaacs wore cheap but flashy clothes and accessories, designed to convey wealth, when walking the streets of Whitechapel and Spitalfields, to which I responded:

“There is no suggestion that Isaacs ever attempted to pull off a “faux-flashy” appearance in the heart of Whitechapel at the height of the ripper murders, less still convince anyone that he was genuinely wealthy.”

I’ve highlighted in bold the portion you strangely omitted when quoting me.

Hi Ben.

I can't see why you try to limit where he wears his clothes. Do you think he toff's himself up everywhere except Whitechapel?
He lived in Whitechapel, it was his home. Surely you do not suggest he brings along a change of clothing for when he exits Whitechapel, to leap into the nearest phone box for a quick change - Superman style?
He never carried a bag, of any size, let alone for a change of clothes.
Oh wait, no phone boxes yet. I guess he's outa luck.

If he possessed the clothing, and if he possessed the 'bling', then it doesn't matter where he wore it. The point you seemed to be making was he didn't have the money to afford to dress up like that. You did refer to something like that, yes?
That is really what I was addressing.

Not that he may have dressed that way everywhere else in England, just not Whitechapel.
If that is what you meant, I can't imagine the rational for trying to push an argument like that.

I know not if Hutchinson went anywhere near the town hall on the day of the inquest, but he was unlikely to have been singled out in the crowds if he did - and they were crowds.

What did I say about doing your homework?

"The inquest on Mary Jane Kelly began this morning at eleven o'clock, at Shoreditch town hall. There was no crowd at the doors, and little excitement. Without the coroner's court half a dozen wretched-looking women were sitting on half a dozen cane chairs waiting to be called;..."
Pall Mall Gazette, 12 Nov. 1888.

Oops.. Mr Wideawake, in dark clothes, sticks out like a sore thumb.

So, as the inquest room was too small for a crowd inside, and there was no crowd outside. How then could Hutchinson sneak around to gather intelligence, without being seen?
I sense a major revision in your theory coming shortly....

Please Ben, stop guessing.

[harry]

At eleven o'clock when the inquest began,there may have been little crowd and no excitement,but what about the time in-between,and at the conclusion?

It is often repeated on thes boards that no one knows the time of the murder of Kelly..Not quite true.The killer certainly would have been aware of the time as being nearer say 3AM than 10AM,thus able to frame an alibi for his time there.

[Wickerman]

Theories, come from the evidence, not from speculation.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

We might assume that a streetwise petty criminal such as Isaacs would have known a good deal better than to “toff up” in the heart of Whitechapel during that period in its history. Little wonder then that you’ve failed to deliver on my request for evidence that he did so. He required neither Superman abilities nor a vacant phone box to figure such a basic reality out, and leave his fake bling at home when exploring the delights of Paternoster Row.

Common sense and a basic regard for his personal safety would have dictated where and when he played fancy dress.

No, I did not suggest that Isaacs lacked the money for the outfit. No money was required, that’s the whole point. It was so cheap and unconvincing that the fakery was easily exposed.

Contradicting your Pall Mall Gazette article are the sources attesting to crowds of people that threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s office in Shoreditch. No, I do not have my sources to hand at present, but until I locate them - which shouldn’t take too long - by all means accuse me of lying or “guessing”.

I suggest a little more imagination may be required if you’re claiming that a non-descript labourer hanging around that general vicinity for a very short period would have caused a public outcry. That’s if he was there at all, which he need not have been.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

As much as RJ’s experiment was no doubt conducted with the best of intentions, it unfortunately fails as a valid comparison on two very important levels; a) it ostensibly involved the use of modern electricity as a lighting aid, which is a million miles away from the piddle-poor emitting powers of an 1888 gas lamp, and b) RJ was aware of the object’s colour before he even conducted his experiment, which does taint the latter’s validity somewhat.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Abby,

As much as RJ’s experiment was no doubt conducted with the best of intentions, it unfortunately fails as a valid comparison on two very important levels; a) it ostensibly involved the use of modern electricity as a lighting aid, which is a million miles away from the piddle-poor emitting powers of an 1888 gas lamp, and b) RJ was aware of the object’s colour before he even conducted his experiment, which does taint the latter’s validity somewhat.

Best wishes,
Ben

I was camping at the weekend and when a tent 40 yards away opened, I could see by the feeble light of their gas lantern that the occupant was wearing a red top.
Does that make me a lying publicity seeker / murderer?

[Joshua Rogan]

Let's not forget, Astrachan passed directly under a lamp in front of Hutchinson where this red handkerchief could have been seen in his top pocket as he passed by.

At the same time as he noted the red stone on Astrakhan's watch chain.

[Ben]

Does that make me a lying publicity seeker / murderer?

No, Joshua, but it might make you someone who hasn’t researched the subject of Victorian gas lighting in any great depth. A modern day gas lantern of the type used for outdoor activities is not “feeble”, by any means. Such items are mini Blackpool Towers compared to the naked flames under glass houses, which proliferated the streets of London in 1888.

You’ll also note the difference between the surface area of a top or pullover and a very small handkerchief, produced for a fleeting moment 35 meters away.

I’ve never heard of anyone wearing their handkerchiefs in their outer overcoat pockets, nor have I heard of anyone whose abdomen protrudes to such an extent that a watch chain seal can be on display on a dark street underneath two overcoats.

But I suppose some people are anxious for the ripper to be an exotic “interesting” creature, and so bypass these and other common sense considerations.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Joshua, but it might make you someone who hasn’t researched the subject of Victorian gas lighting in any great depth. A modern day gas lantern of the type used for outdoor activities is not “feeble”, by any means. Such items are mini Blackpool Towers compared to the naked flames under glass houses, which proliferated the streets of London in 1888.

You’ll also note the difference between the surface area of a top or pullover and a very small handkerchief, produced for a fleeting moment 35 meters away.

I’ve never heard of anyone wearing their handkerchiefs in their outer overcoat pockets, nor have I heard of anyone whose abdomen protrudes to such an extent that a watch chain seal can be on display on a dark street underneath two overcoats.

But I suppose some people are anxious for the ripper to be an exotic “interesting” creature, and so bypass these and other common sense considerations.

Victorian gas lamps only emitted a down ward beam around a small area at the base of the lamp.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

No, I do not agree in the slightest that Hutchinson would have been better served by inventing a lower class Jew if his intent was to incriminate that particular community. You’ll remember that Hutchinson’s alleged motivation for loitering 45 minutes outside the court entrance - as initially accepted by the police - was that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed (i.e. as Astrakhan) in Kelly’s company.

A most unconvincing and disappointing response, Ben. I was hoping you could raise the bar a little higher than this.

You seem to be doing your best to ignore the point (made by Caz, among others) that Hutchinson volunteered that he had been loitering across from the court for 45 minutes.

This is one of several major weaknesses in your attempt to fit up Georgie. You have no explanation for his candid admission, and it makes mincemeat of your 'forced by circumstances to inject himself' argument.


If the impetus for GH coming forward was the brief sighting by Sarah Lewis, which you claim it was, he could have told Badham that he had walked all day, was shut out for the night, was tired and rested a few minutes, and then moved on. Full stop. There was utterly no reason why he would have needed to implicate himself further by stating he hung around for damn near an hour, walked up the court, etc.

So no, there was no reason to invent the man's fancy clothes to 'explain' his loitering for 45 minutes, since there was no reason to volunteer having been there for 45 minutes in the first place. If Hutch was a racist attempting to implicate our Jewish friends, he would have chosen a Kosminski of the Aaron type, and not of the Martin type.

P.S. You'll be happy to know I conducted more experiments last night, this time with an oil lamp and a group of Tibetan peace flags. The two bottles of stout also helped. I really encourage you to run some experiments of your own. Join Mr. Rogan in what might be called "hands on" field experiments. Other good ones concern how long a farthing candle will burn; how much light is emitted by burning clothes; can you really tell the difference between a half of pig's kidney soaked in spirits for two weeks and one that has soaked for only two days? The sky is the limit. Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

Ben - I do have one question before heading out for the day. Maybe Harry could also chime in. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Lewis described the man she witnessed as 'short and stout.' The reporter described Hutchinson as of 'military appearance.' Does one usually use this latter phrase to describe someone that is short and stout? How do you know it is even the same man?

Recall that Lewis also mentioned a 'young man' in the street. It seems to me there was likely to have been many more people out and about than we always get when Ripperologists create these barren, stick-figure pantomimes in order to weave their theories.

Enjoy your afternoon.

[Sam Flynn]

Other good ones concern how long a farthing candle will burn...

Oh, a farthing candle! I swear that I initially did a double-take there, RJ.