Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Sam Flynn]

Both documents were signed within hours of each other on 12th November 1888.

The two signatures are wholly different.

I really don't agree, Simon. If it is a forgery, it's an excellent one.

One was not written by Arnold, but was meant to look like Arnold's signature.

How do you know it was not written by Arnold?

[Sam Flynn]

Here's another Arnold signature specimen from November 1888—

[ATTACH]18751[/ATTACH]

Yup, and that's also practically identical to the three you've already posted.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

It's very like the first example and similar to the third example.

Check out the suffixes in examples 2 and 3.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

It's very like the first example and similar to the third example.

Check out the suffixes in examples 2 and 3.

I agree that the word "Supt" that follows the signatures look different, but the signatures themselves are very, very similar.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

In example 3 the 'S' in Supt—



Is exceedingly similar to this 'S'—



Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

It may well be, Simon, but the Arnold signatures are practically identical. Whatever got scribbled afterwards might have been added retrospectively by another scribe for whatever reason - e.g. "Oh, look, he's forgotten to write his rank there....".

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Example 2 is very different to the other three.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

Example 2 is very different to the other three.

Totally disagree, Simon. It's a very distinctive and fluent signature in all four examples, and whoever wrote it was familiar and comfortable with doing so.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon. If, in fact, Hutchinson was compelled to come forward because he harboured a sinister ulterior motive, it would have been because of Sarah Lewis.

Hello Robert.

That might depend on what ulterior motive he had in mind.

If he was intent on mugging Astrachan, but impatiently left the scene. He had no reason to come forward. But, that would mean Astrachan did exist.

If he was intent on murdering Kelly, how did he know she was in her room, unless he saw her go there? Which means he had to be telling some truths.
If he did kill Kelly, why come forward?
Sarah Lewis could not provide any details of the loiterer; age, height, clothing, etc.
The story he told police does not justify him standing there. He did not provide a reason. So, why put yourself at the crime scene when you cannot justify why you were there?

If Hutch was not even there at all, just made the whole thing up, then how would he know of this woman walking down Dorset street (Sarah Lewis)?

We can quite reasonably eliminate many of these "what ifs" if we are only honest with ourselves.

At the inquest, Sarah Lewis claims to have seen two men: her Wednesday accoster and the Wideawake man. Combined with Hutchinson's story, this means, at 2:30a, Aman/Jack the Ripper and her accoster were both active near to each other, which could just be a freak occurrence.

Yes, but this means Hutch had to be telling the truth.
Also, was A-man really Jack the Ripper?
There is sufficient time for Kelly to have had another client before 3:30-4:00, or whenever that cry of murder really was heard.
That is what I think happened.

However, if Hutch's story is fabricated baloney & there was no Aman, then (from Lewis' perspective), between her accoster and the wideawake man, there could be a resembling scenario similar to what Israel Schwartz claims to have seen on Berners Street - an accoster and (possibly) another man lurking across from the murder site. That's the best alternative I been able to come up with...

Well, if his story was fabricated, he wouldn't know about this woman (Sarah Lewis) seeing a loiterer in Dorset street. Lewis never spoke to the press before the inquest, so how could he place himself there at the correct time to coordinate with a woman he didn't know existed?

The path of least resistance is, that Hutch was telling the truth.

He didn't come forward on Friday because all the press stories & the theories reported a late morning murder theory - after 9:00 am.

[Wickerman]

I really don't agree, Simon. If it is a forgery, it's an excellent one.

Seconded!

Sorry Simon, thats just the way it looks.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

If you say so.

I'll save the best for another day.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi Sam,

If you say so.

I'll save the best for another day.

Regards,

Simon

Save it for a rainy day, but i would like to hear it.

[Ben]

Now look what you’ve done, Jon.

All that Daily News “passing up the court” business that you insisted on championing - along with your attempts to manoeuvre Hutchinson to a more convenient location for hanky sporting - is sending everyone right off the boil, to the point where Hutchinson’s very presence outside Millers Court that night is now being questioned.

If you had only stuck to accepting that the man Lewis saw was probably Hutchinson and left if at that, everything would be fine. We have no quibble on that score - an examination of both accounts establishes as much beyond reasonable doubt as far as I’m concerned. The location is the same, the time is the same, even Lewis’s impression that the man appeared to be “watching or waiting for someone” is entirely consistent with Hutchinson’s account of his movements.

I agree entirely with Robert. Lewis’s account establishes that Hutchinson was probably telling the truth about loitering outside the court at 2.30am. Let’s just rejoice in our agreement upon that clear and obvious point, rather than ruining everything by conjuring up some not existent Lewis-generated support for the Astrakhan encounter.

If you wish to promote Hutchinson’s press account as gospel, as you clearly do, let’s pay attention to the actual wording:

”They walked across the road to Dorset street. I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes.”

There it is, in unambiguous language. During the “three minutes” that Kelly and Astrakhan stood outside the entrance to Miller’s Court, Hutchinson claimed to have been standing at the corner of Dorset Street. In other words, 120 feet away, exactly as I stated several days ago. Remind me again on what basis did you challenge this?

Placing him any closer to the couple is not only at major variance with the evidence, it makes an utter absurdity of Astrakhan/Kelly’s failure to register Hutchinson’s intrusively close proximity. Or are you seriously suggesting neither of them noticed his loitering presence 25 feet away, oblivious to the fact that they had been followed at very close quarters by the same man all the way from the Queen’s Head?

“If the Hutchinson suspect was too unbelievable to be real, then is this person also an invention?”

Quite possibly, yes.

“This story certainly needs corroboration” understates the Echo, no doubt mindful of the fact that it amounted to second-hand hearsay at best. Even if the man existed, we have no reliable idea of the extent to which he resembled “the Hutchinson suspect”. You’ll notice that there is no mention of any police interest in this episode.

[Ben]

You have suggested that Hutchinson obtained his information, for his story, from the testimony given at the inquest. At first you suggested from inside, but you changed that to him waiting outside.

Not true, Jon.

I didn’t “change” at any point; I expounded a number of potential sources for the information that Sarah Lewis was both at the inquest and likely to mention her sighting of a man in a wideawake. The crux of the observation being that her evidence was by no means inaccessible to anyone who wanted, for whatever reason, to access it.

No further “argument” necessary on the Romford issue. If you honestly can’t suggest any credible explanation for Hutchinson’s decision to walk 12 miles in the small hours just to be optionally “homeless” at the other end - his “usual” lodgings having closed and all the other hundreds of similar establishments being adjudged too scummy - I can only assume you secretly find this aspect of the story as incredible as I do.

“Was he out over night for two hours, or three?, and what does it matter?”

It matters inasmuch as it makes not the slightest bit of sense for Hutchinson to have remained “out over night” when he had money to secure lodgings overnight. It’s not as if there was a buzzing nightclub scene in Spitalfields at the time.

“Therefore, Abberline 'may' have already been familiar with the name Hutchinson before he sat down to interrogate him”

Eh?

Never heard that one before!

Just the name? Nothing of the description or the barebones, at the very least, of his account? Why should that have been the case if the PC alerted the local detectives on Sunday upon completion of his “shift”? There would have been a frantic search for Hutchinson at the Victoria Home for a whole 24-hour period following the PC’s revelation. If there was any suggestion that this hunt finally came to a conclusion when Hutchinson himself approached the police station, Abberline would have written in his report that he’d “finally located the man Hutchinson”.

”Which is why he spoke to the PC on Sunday morning.
Apparently, that didn't work (in his mind?) because of what he ultimately read in the Star following the inquest”

Which doesn’t explain why he didn’t come forward on Friday or Saturday, and doesn’t explain the inertia and ineptitude of the “Sunday policeman” for failing to take action after Hutchinson’s contacted him.

“How does an open coat manage to conceal the jacket, waistcoat, watch chain & handkerchief?”

I suggest you don a couple of overcoats and see for yourself, paying particular attention to the way the garments hang from the shoulders, affecting the chest area.

I do find it noticeable that the interview with Hutchinson reported in the press is regarded with such derision by some, yet those same theorists often quote from it in order to cast doubt on Hutchinson.

Yes.

And?

Are you suggesting some sort of inconsistency here? I’m quite sure that Hutchinson was responsible for the embellishments that appeared in the press version (or was the Sunday policeman, red stone seal etc all the conjuration of an enterprising journalist?), and in accordance with the “derision” with which I admittedly “regard” it, I “quote from it in order to cast doubt on Hutchinson”.

If there’s a contradiction in there, I would be grateful to have it explained to me.

[Ben]

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.

Fascinating logic there, Jon - so the fact that he “can’t even provide a basic excuse for being there so long” is evidence that he had one and mysteriously didn’t reveal it, and must therefore be genuine, whereas if he had a plausible excuse for being there and readily revealed it, that’s somehow indicative of fabrication and subterfuge? If you say so...

Hutchinson justified his sustained interest in the couple on the basis of his alleged “surprise” at seeing a man so well-dressed in Kelly’s company. If that isn’t sufficient for you, then I suggest you take it up with Abberline, who accepted it.

Well, before he discredited Hutchinson a couple of days later, of course.

Setting aside the absurdity, as extensively discussed, of anyone as attired and bedecked as Astrakhan departing that locality unmugged, I’ve got to chuckle at the notion of Kelly and her little hovel presenting some sort of obstacle to Hutchinson mugging Astrakhan, had that been his intention.

“If he was intent on murdering Kelly, how did he know she was in her room, unless he saw her go there?”

By walking up the passage and peering through the window.

Why come forward if he was the killer? To legitimise his presence at a crime scene in case Lewis recognised him again, to deflect suspicion in the direction of the Jews, as he sought to do during the double event, and probably out of sheer bravado too. Fairly textbook serial killer behaviour and not too taxing a concept for anyone to get their noggins around, but that’s only “if” he was the killer, of course.

Your excuse for Hutchinson not coming forward on Friday is terrible. Witnesses do not deliberately avoid coming forward on the basis of how well or badly their experiences correlate with other witnesses.

Regards,
Ben