Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

Which of these three documents did Superintendent Arnold not sign?

[ATTACH]18742[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]18743[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Well.. Lucky dip time here says only ONE of them is really Arnold's.

I will go for no. 2 being the real deal.



Phil

[Robert St Devil]

The way Hutchinson describes the scene, he was waiting at the corner of Dorset St when he observed Mary and Aman at the corner of Miller's Court. He watched as they both went up the court and "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not." The "I went to" part makes me think that he wasn't originally at an angle where he could see up the passage, considering it comes right after his statement of lamping at the corner. In some press reports, he's reported saying that he entered the court but didn't see a light on in Mary's room.

To me, this could either speak of an acquaintanceship between Mary and George or it's part of a hogwash story. I mean, how did George know which house she lived in if he didn't see which apartment that they went into? There were 12 apartments in the yard and another door leading to the rooms upstairs.

[Wickerman]

.......Ben is mute on this point, not surprisingly perhaps, but at least Abby was willing to posit that Hutch was waiting for Blotchy to exit the room.

But how does he know Blotchy is even in the room?

Hi RJ.
Exactly!

Is the Ripper now tip toeing up courts peeping into rooms and then waiting around aimlessly for hours hoping the people will come out?

As this detail was only given to the press (that he went up the court), those same theorists have told me it must be a lie.
So now he doesn't even know if anyone is in the room - Kelly included.

Is there a third client that we don't know about, or is George so schizophrenic that he waits on imaginary clients?

We do read about a third client (by Mrs Kennedy), he was seen with Kelly outside the Britannia "about 3:00 am". So, within minutes of Hutchinson & Astrachan leaving.

And, like you, I am still waiting for a credible explanation as to why Hutchinson would admit to having been outside the scene of the crime for upwards of 45 minutes when he had no good reason to do so. It's easier for me to believe he was telling the truth.

He doesn't even give an explanation, not to police nor to the press. "Waiting for them to come out" is not an answer. Abberline would obviously have asked, "then what?"
Not the kind of well though-out ruse to deceive police if you can't even provide a basic excuse for being there so long.

Of course, an innocent man is not thinking of an excuse. That is why he didn't give one, in my book.

[Wickerman]

The way Hutchinson describes the scene, he was waiting at the corner of Dorset St when he observed Mary and Aman at the corner of Miller's Court.

That is a common interpretation, but it isn't the only interpretation.
In his police statement, he says this:
"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them."

If he followed them into Dorset street, then he can't have stayed back at the corner.

He then says:
"They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her. ...(talking)... They both then went up the court together."

Where was Hutchinson when he heard them talking? - he does not say.
Obviously, he can't claim to have heard them talking from way back at the corner of Dorset St. but some theorists try to accuse Hutchinson of this.
Even Abberline wouldn't have accepted that ridiculous claim.
He had to be standing closer than that.

In his press statement he does say he stood at the corner of Dorset street, but he says he "followed them across", this being Commercial St.
So, it is quite natural that he would pause at the corner of Dorset St. until they got a good distance ahead of him, to avoid the man seeing someone following them. He would then casually walk on down behind them, on the opposite side, to take up a position opposite Millers Court.
This is speculation, but it joins the two statements together.

Then, he said:
"I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not."

If, he was standing directly opposite Millers Court, where Sarah Lewis said she saw a man loitering. Then he crossed the road to the court to see where they went. But, he can't see anymore from the entrance to the court than he could from directly opposite.

So, it makes sense that this last remark meant inside the court. "To the court" means up the passage to the actual court at the other end.
This is the only position where he could see or hear anything.
And, this is precisely what he says in his press statement.
"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

It fits the more common sense interpretation of his story.

When he then says:
"I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away." He is obviously talking about standing in the street, not in the court.

If we just apply common sense, instead of trying to fit him up, the story is quite logical.

[harry]

There is no ambiguity in what I said.I have not claimed every utterence of Hutchinson was a lie.He would obviously have stated truths that could be easily proven,very much as most killers do.His residence at the Victoria home for example,but he was careful enough to give information that had no corrorberation,and we know,as was known at the time,or at least three days afterwards,that no one had come forward with any information of Kelly doing anything after coming home about midnight Thursday,except for her singing.So putting her out of doors, meeting a man,and taking him home,was not a great risk,and even less of a risk,if Hutchinson had told one truth.That is, he was,for some reason,actually in Commercial road,about 2am,and knew the road was devoid of any other person,and also knew that Blotchy was no longer in Kelly's room.

Now before Jon and others jump in and say there is no evidence for anything I have said,there is no evidence for believing otherwise,and theoretically it is better to start with a suspect who put's himself at the scene of a crime,than one whose whereabouts that whole night,is totally unknown.

[Robert St Devil]

Then, he said:
"I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not."

This tells me that Hutch is not aware that they entered Mary's room or else he wouldn't look for them in the Court, which would have made for an odd encounter on the off-chance that Mary and Aman were, in fact, in the Court; after all, guys just scowled at Hutch just prior and, now, here he is, again, in the Court.

And, obviously, he didn't see Mary open the door and let Aman into No. 13; so maybe his vantage from directly opposite the passage was hindered; that, or he was not directly across from the passage.

And, this is precisely what he says in his press statement.
"I went up the court and stayed there a couple of minutes, but did not see any light in the house or hear any noise."

Whose house? Mary's?? If he means her apartment AND he didn't see where they went, how does he know which house is hers? Are they such good friends that he knows where she lives without being guided?

[Abby Normal]

Hi RJ.
Exactly!



As this detail was only given to the press (that he went up the court), those same theorists have told me it must be a lie.
So now he doesn't even know if anyone is in the room - Kelly included.



We do read about a third client (by Mrs Kennedy), he was seen with Kelly outside the Britannia "about 3:00 am". So, within minutes of Hutchinson & Astrachan leaving.



He doesn't even give an explanation, not to police nor to the press. "Waiting for them to come out" is not an answer. Abberline would obviously have asked, "then what?"
Not the kind of well though-out ruse to deceive police if you can't even provide a basic excuse for being there so long.

Of course, an innocent man is not thinking of an excuse. That is why he didn't give one, in my book.

Gentlemen
I beleive hutch may have known mary was with a client because knowing her and where she lived, perhaps even hearing that she had recently broke up with barnett, he went to her place and found out she was with a guest. Her window was broken, so he may have heard them. Or he may have knocked and told to bugger off. So he waits awhile for her guest to leave, after about 45 minutes or so leaves, comes back about an hour later, finds the man gone. Enters marys room and kills her, coinciding with the heard cries of murder around 4:00 am.
Total speculation i know but fits for me.

[Ben]

It never ceases to amaze me that for some people, a working class local resorting to subterfuge is the “Hollywood” explanation, whilst the curly moustached pantomime villain with the red stone seal and the sinister black parcel is the plausible one. It’s difficult to envisage a more “Hollywood” suspect that the Astrakhan man, but for some commentators, he’s the real deal.

[Ben]

To Joshua and other “experimenters”,

As entertaining as these excursions into the back garden with a torch may have been, I would respectfully submit that a slightly more scientific approach, such as that adopted by your opponents, might carry a little more weight. If it’s a choice between factual information, such as as I’ve provided with regard to the nature of gas lighting in 1888 (and taken in conjunction with Gareth’s scientific data and Simon’s measured distances), versus “I went down outside at night time”, I’ve got a pretty good idea which side would stand up in court.

Also, and I’m not suggesting anything untoward here, is there any chance we could incorporate a camera into the proceeding if we’re really so intent on reviving a discredited account?

You’ll forgive my scepticism when, for instance, I point out the inapplicability of modern lighting in order to create a faithful recreation of the 1888 lighting conditions, only to be met with a swift assurance from the experimenters that they’ve now taken all those factors on board, conducted brand new experiments and then, well, blow me down if these new tests didn't just support the conclusion they jumped to years ago!

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

So we’re now finally agreed that there were indeed crowds outside the town hall on the morning of the inquest. Excellent; glad that’s finally sorted. You seem a little confused about my “theory” however, which was not necessarily that Hutchinson was waiting to see who emerged from the inquest after it had finished (he may have been, and we know nothing about the presence of crowds at that juncture).

I suggested instead that Hutchinson, lost in the reported crowds, may have registered which witnesses were due to appear at the inquest, noting Lewis among them.

Even if I guessed his real reason, you are in no position to judge whether I am correct.

But I am in a position to express an opinion as to whether or not it makes any sense, so have a guess and I’ll assess! And then you can criticise my assessment if you like.

I already showed you an example of homeless people who prefer to sleep on the streets rather than risk staying a night among 'undesirables' in less than sanitary surroundings.

But he didn’t “prefer to sleep on the streets”, otherwise he would have done precisely that in Romford, rather than walking 12 miles in horrible weather conditions to a place that you insist was unsanitary and choc full of “undesirables”. You say he was so averse to Whitechapel, but why the long walk there unless he was intent on a bed that night? Or are you suggesting he fully intended to do yet more walking about after his monster trek from Romford?

Surely you must see what little sense this makes?

Now you’re suggesting he had no intention of trying to sleep anywhere until the lodging house opened in the morning, in which case what was wrong with a Romford lodging house? Clearly, by your reasoning, he had no intention of working the next morning; there no way a man in his impoverished circumstances would surrender fourpence for just a couple of hours’ kip.

Can you “guess” at his motive for deliberately staying up all night - missing those precious closing times - and only intending to gain entry to his lodging house at 5.00am?

“Then he has to pass it on to Scotland Yard, and how long does it sit there over Sunday night?”

Are you seriously suggesting that Hutchinson’s story found its way to “Scotland Yard” before Hutchinson himself found his way to the police station? That’s a new one, Jon, I’ll concede as much. Not fabulously plausible, though, for fairly obvious reasons. Why did this mysterious PC pass his notebook containing Hutchinson’s particulars onto Scotland Yard before first alerting senior officers “on the ground”, like Abberline himself, at either Commercial Street or Leman Street Station?

This would be sufficient cause for him to go to the police to tell them they had it wrong, Kelly was alive and on the streets after 1:00 am.

But he had “sufficient cause” already in the form of his own experience and his own knowledge of Kelly being on the streets after Cox had seen her. So what was preventing him from coming forward before he had ever heard of Cox? Witnesses don’t generally wait to see if their evidence meshes up with other witnesses before making themselves known - that is the job of the actual detectives.

Astrakhan’s coat being open would not have made any difference to the fact that a waistcoat handkerchief would have been concealed from view.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I would imagine the killer readily embraced the inevitability of his face being seen at some stage during the pre-crime phase, such was the overcrowded nature of the district. How he dealt with it subsequently would no doubt have been predicated on various factors; the proximity to his home, the likelihood of him being recognised again etc.

As we’ve discussed many times, I doubt that Hutchinson’s sole motivation in coming forward was self-preservation. While it was an important factor, I suspect that in addition to the pure thrill of getting one over on his pursuers right under their noses (bold as brass and completely in keeping with the nature of the crimes themselves), he may have been intent on a continuation of earlier efforts to incriminate the Jewish community.

You’ve argued yourself, very sensibly and persuasively, that the killer may have been intent on fuelling anti-Semitic sentiment in the district, and if Hutchinson was himself the killer, could not his Astrakhan creation have been a simple extension of his earlier attempts in that regard, such as the Goulston Street graffiti, which the police hierarchy agreed was written to incriminate the Jews?

If, as you say, there was little to no chance of him being buckled, what was there to lose by taking such an initiative, if it served the dual purpose of providing an “innocent” explanation for Lewis’s loiterer AND re-directing suspicion in a Jewish direction?

Finally, serial killers have been injecting themselves into their investigations for many decades since 1888; it certainly is not the case that this is only a relatively recent phenomenon. The earliest example I’ve managed to track down is that of Leopold and Loeb in 1924. It is quite untrue to claim that this behavioural trait only started occurring after the development and sophistication of modern forensic evidence.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

You say you don’t “get” why Hutchinson would have waited outside the court for 45 minutes if he was the killer, and yet that’s precisely what the vast majority of serial killers have done when targetting indoor locations; they install themselves at a vantage point and monitor the various comings and goings, before choosing the most opportune moment to strike.

Ted Bundy is one example of a killer who altered his approach to suit different circumstances. When out and about, he adopted a false guise to inveigle his victims into this company (similar to what Lawende’s and Long observed in the ripper case), but when it came to the indoor Tallahassee murders, he simply broke into the girls' rooms after monitoring the building from a vantage point, just as Robert Napper and Dannis Rader did.

Conversely, loitering for 45 minutes is absolutely the last thing any sane and innocent person would do after walking 12 hours in miserable conditions for the very purpose of securing a bed. He did not have “nowhere to go and nothing to do” - he had a very urgent need and compulsion to remedy his current predicament, which meant putting senseless voyeurism aside and securing shelter as quickly as possible.

You’re quite right that someone may have seen him enter the court, which is why he accounted for that possibility later when speaking to press, claiming to have waited outside her room for a “couple of minutes”. He could have been reasonably secure in the knowledge that nobody had seen him enter the room itself, but as you rightly observe, he couldn’t have been nearly so confident that his entry up the passage hasn’t been witnessed.

You say you find it surprising that Hutchinson case forward at all under “those circumstances”, and I couldn’t agree more. But if he was naturally wary of the police and concerned that they might “fit him up” for the murders, why did he come forward three days late if it meant the chances of the latter outcome increased, as he had every reason to believe they would have done?

How do we account for the “coincidence” of his coming forward the moment the inquest came to a close and the opportunity to be quizzed on the stand, in a public setting, had disappeared forever? How do we account for his sudden emergence so shortly after the publication of Sarah Lewis’s evidence, which described a man loitering outside Miller’s Court in the very location Hutchinson would shortly thereafter claim to have stood?

I’m not suggesting for a moment that coming forward after the inquest gave him immunity from suspicion; I’m simply arguing that he would probably not have come forward at all had he not discovered that he’d been seen by one of the inquest witnesses. I’m saying it was her evidence that provided the impetus for his decision to contact the police, and the not-so coincidental timing of events supports my contention rather well.

As for Blotchy and Pipeman, if neither was guilty of murder it should come as no great surprise they they were not compelled to legitimise their pretence and a crime scene, less still create a false trail in the form of a fictional suspect.

Finally, it makes no odds to me if Hutchinson was a casual client of Kelly’s or a personal friend. It’s his behaviour in relation to Kelly on the night of the murder that renders his failure to come forward at the earliest opportunity all the more perplexing. He wasn’t simply going about his business like Lawende and co; his actions and movements for a whole hour spanning 2.00-3.00am were very much Kelly-focused.

Aren’t you at least a bit suspicious or curious as to how overtly “signposted” many aspects of his account are? For instance, the words “I must go and find some money” are even put into Kelly’s mouth, lest we have any doubt at her reaction upon seeing a man with a thick cold chain. “Duh, I get it” - we’re supposed to think - “she goes with Astrakhan man because she’s looking for some money, and he’s obviously got loads of it!”.

The “tightly grasped” parcel and the hat pulled down over his eyes are other “signposts” designed to help the reader or listener form the desired impression.

This, I suggest, is the real “Hollywood”.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz,

I would imagine the killer readily embraced the inevitability of his face being seen at some stage during the pre-crime phase, such was the overcrowded nature of the district. How he dealt with it subsequently would no doubt have been predicated on various factors; the proximity to his home, the likelihood of him being recognised again etc.

As we’ve discussed many times, I doubt that Hutchinson’s sole motivation in coming forward was self-preservation. While it was an important factor, I suspect that in addition to the pure thrill of getting one over on his pursuers right under their noses (bold as brass and completely in keeping with the nature of the crimes themselves), he may have been intent on a continuation of earlier efforts to incriminate the Jewish community.

You’ve argued yourself, very sensibly and persuasively, that the killer may have been intent on fuelling anti-Semitic sentiment in the district, and if Hutchinson was himself the killer, could not his Astrakhan creation have been a simple extension of his earlier attempts in that regard, such as the Goulston Street graffiti, which the police hierarchy agreed was written to incriminate the Jews?

If, as you say, there was little to no chance of him being buckled, what was there to lose by taking such an initiative, if it served the dual purpose of providing an “innocent” explanation for Lewis’s loiterer AND re-directing suspicion in a Jewish direction?

Finally, serial killers have been injecting themselves into their investigations for many decades since 1888; it certainly is not the case that this is only a relatively recent phenomenon. The earliest example I’ve managed to track down is that of Leopold and Loeb in 1924. It is quite untrue to claim that this behavioural trait only started occurring after the development and sophistication of modern forensic evidence.

yup-its always struck me that the only two direct pieces of evidence implicating a jew abound in the whole case-the GSG and Hutchs jewish suspect, the only witness to do so. Surprise surprise.

[Ben]

Agreed, Abby, and the only suspect or person of interest who can be shown to have engaged in Jew-implicating behaviour.

[Sam Flynn]

Finally, serial killers have been injecting themselves into their investigations for many decades since 1888; it certainly is not the case that this is only a relatively recent phenomenon. The earliest example I’ve managed to track down is that of Leopold and Loeb in 1924.

Regardless of the state of forensic science at the time, there were tangible connections between one of the perpetrators and the victim, Bobby Franks, his second cousin. Loeb lived across the street from Franks, who had often played tennis at Loeb's place. (source: Wikipedia) That his accomplice and co-conspirator Leopold fed the police with misinformation, whilst Loeb kept his head down, is hardly surprising in the circumstances.