Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

As Mama Cass told us—

It never rains in southern California.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

“What's unintentially funny about this 'sinister' parcel (it could be a present for his child for all we know...”

We both know it was a packet of patented Indian Root pills, RJ.

“If Hutch arrived on the scene at 2 a.m. he wouldn't have been aware that Cox's blotchy client was in the room”

Unless he knew of Kelly’s domestic circumstances from previous (transactional?) experience and simply walked up the court passage, peered through the window, and registered the presence of blotchy man sleeping bedside her.

As Garry Wroe posits in his book on Hutchinson:

“Aware that Barnett had left her a fortnight earlier, his plan required finding Kelly alone. But after reaching through the broken window pane and pulling aside the curtain, he saw by the flickering firelight a blotchy-faced man lying beside her on the bed. Both were sleeping. Cursing his misfortune, Hutchinson withdrew from the court and installed himself on the opposite side of Dorset Street.”

I don’t know of any theory proposing Hutchinson as a potential killer which requires him to have been on the scene at 11.30. It was simply not necessary.

I’m sorry to hear of your scepticism and outrage over my lack of “citation” for my contention that serial killers - along with “one-off” killers, rapists and burglars - tend to conduct some measure of prior surveillance whenever the intended crime is at a victim’s personal residence. I assumed this was common knowledge, since the alternative - waltzing up and charging in, all guns blazing (in a manner not dissimilar from certain Casebook debating strategies) - tends to be less effective, and increases the risk of capture considerably.

I’m very happy to be “called” on the Bundy issue, but I can assure you it was no “bluff”.

The following extract is from The Only Living Witness: The True Story of Serial Sex Killer Ted Bundy by Stephen G. Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth:

”Dubious about hunting at the Holiday Inn (and perhaps uneasy about being seen there by potential witnesses) Bundy may have looked up at the Chi Omega sorority house and been struck with a plan.

From oak bark found in the victims’ three rooms and leading to them from the downstairs sliding door, his choice of weapon and point of entry seem very clear...He would know how to use the back door by watching the returning Chi O sisters park their cars in the rear of the building and then walk over to it. There was a good deal of traffic in and out of the door between two and three than morning”.

(My bold).

While not a direct confession from Bundy that he operated in precisely such a fashion on the night of the murders (a shame, because serial killers are always so honest and reliable during interviews), the scenario suggested by the authors is certainly more consistent with the known evidence than your idea of him randomly stumbling upon the scene and taking advantage.

It’s also fairly consistent with the image of Kelly’s killer monitoring the Miller’s Court traffic from a vantage point similar to Bundy’s at Tallahassee.

So yes, I would be grateful for that promised retraction please, and if you could avoid accusing me of labelling Bundy’s victims “prostitutes”, which I certainly never did, that too would be appreciated.

Finally, here’s what a gas lamp looked like in 1888:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOxkgjHnDA

Quite different to the very bright modern lamp you used in your experiment, which was ostensibly conducted to highlight the redness of a large piece of cloth on permanent display and in very close proximity to both the light source and the observer/photographer, i.e. you.

Quite different, I suggest, to a very weak Bray burner lamp (as above) being used to illuminate a very small piece of cloth, not photographed but produced for a very fleeting moment 120 feet away.

I’d also take the nice warm beach over dodgy Dorset Street any day!

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If George Hutchinson was the killer, then he was not Topping.
If Topping was not the killer. then another Hutchinson could well be.
Its that simple.
Only one person claiming to be the witness, has ever made himself known, George William Topping Hutchinson.
If he was, do you honestly think that man who lived until the thirties, was a cold blooded butcher,. I don't.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Many serial killers have led normal family lives, Richard.

[Wickerman]

Hello Ben.
I'd just like to rearrange a few points you tried to make in this post.
First, Hutchinson's press interview, where you suggested;

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

On the contrary, I am quite willing to leave that source alone. He makes no claims in that interview which change my view of events. Also, there is nothing there which contradicts his police statement.

It is your use of some details in that interview which come across as quite inconsistent.
You have tried to use his account of the Sunday morning PC, to show he was lying. And insist he claimed to hear their talking from 120ft away, all the while knowing perfectly well that would be impossible.
This is typical of your approach to Hutchinson. Set up a straw-man argument, only to knock it down. Thereby claiming he had to be lying, rather than admit it is your deceptive argument that is at fault.

The two quotes below are also inconsistent.
First:

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.

Ok, so in the first quote you accept Lewis saw Hutchinson standing on the south side of Dorset street, outside Crossingham's, opposite Millers court (your own words).

Also,....
- Both Hutchinson and Lewis describe the female as under the influence of drink (Hutchinson - "spree'ish," & Lewis - "the worse for drink"). These are two consistent details, one from each source.

- Both Hutchinson and Lewis place the couple at the Millers Court entrance (Hutchinson - "They both stood at the corner of the Court," & Lewis - "she saw another man and a woman near the court.")
Another consistency.

- Both Hutchinson and Lewis describe this couple going up the passage/court (Hutchinson - "They both then went up the court together," & Lewis - "I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.")
Yet another striking coincidence!

Not forgetting Mary Ann Cox had already described Kelly at 11:45 as not wearing a hat that night, another consistency with Lewis's "no hat on", above.


Yet, your Second quote (below) dismisses all this by claiming Hutchinson was not where Lewis placed him, but 120 ft away at the corner of the street?

Second:

”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.

Either you accept Lewis's testimony placing him opposite the court, or you don't. Show some consistency if you want to be believed.

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?

Who said they didn't notice him?

By a preponderance of the evidence, it is clear both Hutchinson and Lewis saw Kelly with a client that night.

Lewis confirms Hutchinson in a number of striking details.
Much to your chagrin it seems.

[rjpalmer]

Quite different to the very bright modern lamp you used in your experiment

Please, Ben, don't make me spit out my morning tea in a fit of laughter.

Where to you come up with this stuff?

My 'very modern' lamp is no different from an oil lamp from the 19th Century; indeed it is nearly identical to an antique lamp my grandmother owned. It is merely a cloth wick that dangles down into a glass bowl of oil.

There are four factors that come into play in Hutchinson seeing the red-hanky, or at least seeing enough of its pattern to assume to know what he was seeing.

1. How close Kelly and her client were standing to the lamp.
2. How bright that particular lamp was at that particular moment.
3. How close Hutchinson was standing to them.
4. Whether or not any of the surrounding walls or shutters were white-washed, which would add reflected light. (Not an idle observation; I studied this with my ancient knock-up lamp).

Since none of these factors are known with any certainty (and that's not merely my opinion, Rumbelow and Evans stated the same thing) it is simply dishonest to insist that Hutchinson could not have seen the color of the hanky. It's a 'Ripperological' argument, and nothing more. We don't know the exact circumstances.

I notice that you failed to retract your claim that the parcel was 'black.' It was American cloth, which was merely glazed cotton and came in different colors, though, of course, black could have been one of them. Nothing like altering the evidence to make a point, eh Ben?

Concerning Bundy, the authors you quote were merely speculating, but this is hardly the point. I only have a moment, Ben, to discuss what I see as a major flaw in your 'behavioral' claims, but it would certainly make for an interesting discussion at a later time. In a nutshell, one could take any behavior of a so-called serial killer, claim that this is a standard 'behavior,' and then use this behavior to stitch-up an entirely innocent person who is behaving in a similar manner for an entirely different reason. As, for instance, a man in a wide-awake hat leaning against a wall and looking up an alley. This is not 'evidence,' scientific or otherwise, that this particular behavior is that of a 'serial killer.' To make that argument valid, you would have to demonstrate that this particular behavior is linked to the brain chemistry of 'serial killers,' and is not merely the behavior of any other normal human being. The most that can be said of the 'wide-awake' man is that he obviously would be a 'person of interest' in the investigation. No more, no less. To insinuate that he is exhibiting the known behavior of "serial killers" is merely smoke and mirrors. He is exhibiting the known behavior of someone stuck out on the streets in East London in the 1880s, and on any given night there must have been dozens of them. Indeed, you and the Barnett Boys must make the Kelly murder a radical departure from the behavior the Ripper demonstrated in his earlier attacks, which, to my mind, is another weakness of your theory. All the best, Ben.

P.S. By radical departure I mean that he is now killing someone he knows personally, and is 'casing the joint,' ahead of time. No evidence of this in former cases.

[Wickerman]

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.

One source was available, the Echo, though what time this edition came out is not known at this point.
All the Echo published from Lewis's testimony concerning Hutchinson was this:

"She saw a man at the entrance to the court. He was not talking to anyone.
Was he tall? - Not very - a stout-looking man. I do not know whether he had dark clothes on. He seemed as if waiting for some one."

Not anywhere near detailed enough to cause him concern about being recognised. No mention of the wideawake hat either.
And, no cause to even mention Astrachan & Kelly because this man seen by Lewis was not even linked to a man & woman.
So why invent Astrachan & Kelly, if they were not actually present?

Lewis also did not say there was a woman by herself in the street so you can't argue that Hutch saw Kelly by herself and just invented Astrachan.

What the Echo did report by Lewis was " Further on I saw another man and woman."
The words used do not link this man & woman with Hutchinson in the version published by the Echo.

So, if "further on" meant way passed Hutchinson, then why did he make up a story where he is following this couple?
It seems this is another confirmation that "further on" only meant ahead of Lewis, in front of her as she walked on some short distance behind this man & woman.

It would be quite a different matter if Hutchinson had read the Daily News version, but that did not come out until the next morning.

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.

There are any number of reason's, none of which matter if we are both speculating.
A walk from Romford, if taken at the pace of a beat constable, would take 5 hours. So if we take his arrival time as 01:50 am (at the Whitechapel Church), then he could have left Romford around 8:50 in the evening.
Thats the only speculation we can reasonably make. As to why, is anyone's guess.
But, I'm sure I can leave it to you to invent a negative reason.

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.

It wasn't "over night" though, it was already three o'clock when he left Dorset street. Just another two? hours before the Vic. opened.
Saving his money for a more up-scale lodgings makes good sense, as opposed to some of the more crime & vermin infested lodgings that might have been available at that hour.

There would have been a frantic search for Hutchinson at the Victoria Home for a whole 24-hour period following the PC’s revelation.

You're assuming every beat constable knew as much as Scotland Yard did about the investigation. This is very unlikely, what the public read in the press about the late morning murder is very likely all the beat constables knew. They read the papers too.
There had been no official releases (circulars) concerning the investigation over that weekend, so the press was the only known source.

[rjpalmer]

Ben - one more thought. I realize my small oil lamp is not the same as London gaslight, but it's all I have. There are plenty of spots in London and elsewhere in the UK that still have gaslighting; finding one that is not affected by modern light pollution will be difficult, but not necessarily impossible. Maybe you could chase one down and decide for yourself it if is really as 'feeble' as you like to claim. All the best.

[Wickerman]

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...

No Ben, it demonstrates that he didn't come forward in order to provide justification - he didn't have one, and he didn't give one
He came forward for another reason.

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.

The man's attire only "caused him to watch them". Once they entered the court the "watching" was over. Yet, he still claimed to "wait" for about 45 minutes - with no reason provided.
He wasn't even suspicious about the man, so no, that is not a reason.

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

Still making claims you can't substantiate?
Same ol' Ben.

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.

How do you know he wasn't mugged?

By walking up the passage and peering through the window.

Ah, so now you believe the press version - what were we saying about "consistency"?
You believe it when you think it suits you, but dismiss when it doesn't.
And you question me calling these accusations, - "ill-conceived".
Dear, oh dear.

You often discredit your own arguments, you don't always need me to do it.
Recently Caz & RJ have been shooting them full of holes too, you must be feeling under siege.

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.

How did he "legitimise" his presence?
I know you like these fancy words, but they are empty words. He didn't legitimise his presence. He just told police, "er, yeh, it was me guv".

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.

My reason is at least demonstrable, and not conjecture.
The press theories can be seen and read by anyone.
People in general do resist speaking out when every other opinion goes against their story. Avoiding embarrassment, is one obvious reason.

My point about the Friday press coverage is that it has never been addressed before, it is something new. And as such will take time to sink in.
We have always assumed everyone believed the murder took place in the early morning, this is provably untrue, we just never looked into the question before.

[Varqm]

"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"

Ben


If Hutch was discredited he was not there,the whole story was a lie,.It was a whole lie,so he did not have to worry about Lewis.If he was there then he was not discredited he was acting suspicious.
If half a lie,based solely on his initial statement to the police and newspaper statements what was his original story then? There is nothing to indicate it was a half a lie.

The author of GSG is not known - whether the killer or others,even the police where theorising,for ex. Halse.Maybe it aided Warren on deciding to erase the graffitto since if an innocent writer and a riot occurred it was bad for the Met.

---

[Observer]

Unless he knew of Kelly’s domestic circumstances from previous (transactional?) experience and simply walked up the court passage, peered through the window, and registered the presence of blotchy man sleeping bedside her.

What evidence, other than Hutchinsons own admittance, do you have that he was an acquaintance of Mary Kelly?

In my opinion his whole story is one big lie. As soon as the police realised that the fictitious Mr Astrakhan was a figment of George's imagination he soon realised that he was up the creek without a paddle. A liar in the eyes of the police, present at the scene of a murder. He soon changed his tune. George came clean, he was either tucked up in bed at the Victoria Home, or spent the night in Romford. Wherever he was, I doubt he was keeping watch opposite Millers Court in the early hours of the 9th November 1888.

[Simon Wood]

What evidence is there that Hutchinson existed?

[Sam Flynn]

What evidence is there that Hutchinson existed?

The signatures on the 1888 witness statement match those on George Topping Hutchinson's marriage certificate and multiple entries (for his wife and children) in the 1901 census.

Oh yes they do.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Which one of the three Hutchinson signatures on the statement matches the GTH marriage certificate and 1901 Census?

Regards,

Simon

[harry]

How many persons would know that Kelly lived in that room in Millers court?
Hutchinson,by his statements appeared to know.How did he get that information? Would a stranger to the district go scouting such a location on the off chance a door was left unlocked,or a prostitute was waiting inside somewhere along the passge? Doesn't seem a likely Ripper hunting location,yet Kelly was killed there.
Believing as I do,that Kelly had no reason to leave her room after arriving about midnight,the alternative is that Hutchinson lied.There was no Aman,Kelly was murdered by an aquaintance.