Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Varqm]

That's what is called a "swings and roundabouts" argument.
Wrong, by any other cause, is still wrong.

Put it anyway you want.Hutch could have been a main witness.There were only 2 possibilities,Hutch was wrong or not which was less hard to forget.

---

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm,



My suspicion is that Hutchinson was quickly discredited as a probably publicity-seeker, as Packer and Violenia had been before him, but it appears that neither the press nor the police ever made the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis’s wideawake man. Had they done so, it would have been trickier for them to lump him in the same category as the aforementioned bogus witnesses.

Hi Obs,

I certainly agree that the police quickly came to the conclusion that Hutchinson was probably lying, but were unable to prove it. I would be very surprised, however, if he was ever able to provide a “cast iron alibi”. Since no nightly record of names was kept at the Victoria Home, and the establishment could cater for around 500 men, it was quite a big haystack to become the proverbial needle in.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

So what was the reason they dismissed him,just because it was too fantastic a story?We do not know of any report about his past,to add to his credibility or otherwise.They could have came to their senses among the excitement,connecting Lewis and Hutch later on because it was simple logic/reasoning,could not have missed it.

--

[rjpalmer]

Wickerman - It’s odd that Mr. Cook is selling Albert chains, gold watches, seals, pendants, etc., right there at No. 565 Commercial Road, Whitechapel in 1884. I’ve been told it’s virtually impossible to have owned such objects, and to have worn them was to invite instant rape and murder. Note also the wine merchant on Whitechapel Road. For all Ben's talk of men in top hats, etc. I'm under the general impression that he and the Lechmere Brethren are the ones with the cartoonish vision of what East London was like in the 1880s: a relentless no-man's land of gaslight ghouls with flickering street lamps so 'feeble' that it is surprising that there was such a public outcry to install even more of them!

[Varqm]

Hutchinson was not a suspect, he was not defending himself. No-one accused him of lying, he was not put in a position of "prove it, George".
The press merely wanted his story, not a list of people he saw throughout his almost hour-long vigil.

You are confusing his actual role at the time as a witness, with his more modern role as potential suspect. He was never in that position. As such, you seem think he had to offer details that justify every comment he made. That is simply not true.

Whatever Abberline asked him in the interrogation will never be known. Abberline already had Lewis's statement, and we are told Bowyer spoke to Abberline about the man in the court at 3:00, consistent with Hutchinson putting a man with Kelly around that time. It isn't necessary for Abberline to put G.H. in a line up in front of Lewis. Abberline is not required to prove the loiterer was G.H., he admitted that himself. G.H. is not on trial.
Plus, if Hutchinson had the day wrong, then they all got the day wrong - quite the coincidence that.

I do not understand. Abberline's task was to find a suspect and see if this witness was credible.And to see if he was credible he had to see if there are holes in his statement, for one by comparing his testimony to another witness's testimony and investigating this man's past history-to check his honesty/credibility. because by himself Abberline was in the dark.But maybe he did not see initially the connection between Lewis and Hutch and came to his senses later on.

--

[Varqm]

Dew's (perhaps trusting and polite) contention that Hutch got his day wrong I do not agree.Kelly's murder was big news and if Hutch caught the news on Friday evening he would have known if his sighting was today or days ago or a week ago.This is all he had to remember.If he caught the news on Saturday then yesterday or days ago or weeks ago.

----

[Wickerman]

But as I’ve explained so many times, Jon, “detail” and “recognition” are two entirely separate things. It is possible to provide a detailed description of an individual without necessarily being able recognise him again (take Lawende, for instance), and conversely, it is possible to acquire only very basic description of someone but still manage to recognise him again.

I notice you have not provided an example of your all important 2nd "alternate" argument.
A witness unable to provide any recognisable details, yet claims to be able to recognise him again. The obvious question comes to mind, ....how?
What detail not seen could be used to recognise the man again?
Perhaps you can provide the "how" please Ben?

Why did he invent Astrakhan? To legitimise his presence outside - and apparent interest in - Miller’s Court, and also to create a false trail. Again, if he was purely interested in accounting for his presence in Dorset Street, he didn’t need to mention Kelly at all, but he did, which suggests to me that it was important to him to divert suspicion in a particular direction.

It isn't just the invention of a man who was never there. It is also the attire he claimed the man presented himself in.
If G.H. wanted to throw suspicion on Jews, why pick a description completely at odds with every prior suspect description?

He had a few descriptions already to choose from, listed from the two latest murders. And, one well known version was Mrs Long's "foreign" looking suspect with the deerstalker - a Jewish suspect?
So, no shortage of examples.
Therefore, describing the man as he did does not suggest "throwing suspicion on Jews", or creating a decoy for the investigation, was his intent.
And, the path of least resistance for G.H. would simply have been to hot-foot it back to Romford, or out of the district, at the very least.

What was so important to keep G.H. in Whitechapel and go to police telling them a lie, and risk being found out?
None of this makes any sense, unless what he saw was true.
The truth needs no justification.

He didn’t.

Hutchinson made no reference whatsoever to the couple “in drink” mentioned by Lewis, and he certainly wasn’t “following” them.

G.H. gave a story to police that he followed a couple into Dorset street, the female being "spree'ish". He had to follow them to be able to hear their exchange at the Millers Court entrance.
Why claim he didn't?

Remember that even if Hutchinson was telling the truth, Astrakhan and Kelly would already have been inside the room by 2.30, by which time was already about 15 minutes into his pointless vigil. Lewis’s couple were entirely unrelated.

Lewis did not say she arrived at the Keyler's at 2:30, she says she was there at 2:30.
We know the Spitalfields clock struck the half-hour, so as she had no watch then she had to hear the clock after she had arrived.
She says she heard the 3:30 strike, so we know she heard a 2:30 strike at the same location.
Your timing is all incorrect. Lewis arrived before 2:30.

Interesting, Jon. I’ll gladly take your word for those figures. Don’t you think it’s rather extraordinary, then, that Hutchinson embarked on a journey of that epic length when he knew full well that his intended lodgings would have closed by the time of his arrival, leaving him with all the other hundreds of doss houses that you insist he wouldn’t have touched with a barge pole? What’s wrong with dossing down in Romford if he had the cash?

"Extraordinary" does not make for suspicious.
Walking from Romford has no bearing on his story, it provides no alibi, and G.H. could quite easily have explained why, if asked.
You're making a mountain out of a mole-hill Ben, it has no bearing on this case.

You can’t seriously be suggesting that there was such a difference in quality between the Victoria Home and Romford’s offerings that it was worth walking five hours to Whitechapel, only to do yet more walking around for three more hours until his precious “usual” lodgings opened and allowed him to sleep there for a measly two hours. No sane person would go to such senseless extremes even for two free overnight hours at the Savoy.

Why are you so obsessed with a question there is no answer to?
Even you have no answer, but I'm sure you will speculate something negative.
Where is the value in that?

Issues like this show how desperate these accusations have become.
Lets just say he was never at Romford, he made it up, he was having an affair with someone's wife. Now, lets move on....

Hutchinson's story begins as he passed the Whitechapel church, as this is the first pertinent detail in his story - he set's the time.

[rjpalmer]

Ben - Not that it will change your deeply entrenched views, which don't appear to have evolved much over the years, but I would like to try to divest you of one of your sillier notions: that Hutch would have needed the skills and memory of 'Rain Man' to have noticed and described the suspect's watch fob. The reality is, if you spend some time in a vintage jewelry store or, as I have, just over on eBay, you'll soon notice that there are dozens and dozens of these 'bloodstone' watch fobs from 1880-1890 still floating around. Why? Because they were commonplace. They were a standard accessory for the well-to-do dandy. They were as common as 'mood rings' and puka shell necklesses in the 1970s. And they unvaryingly came in two colors: green and red. If you don't believe me look for yourself.

There were also 'spinners': green on one side, and red on the other; if the gentleman wanted to be even flashier he would leave the red side out. It's not like Hinton insinuates; that Hutchinson would have needed amazing attention to detail. In reality, he was merely noticing a rather common item for the well-off dandies of the era. Of course, to weave your profiling fantasies, you must ignore this fundamental fact and make Hutchinson's powers of observation seem superhuman. Silly argument, really, but it's served you well for the past 10 years, so why give up on it now?

[Wickerman]

Hi RJ.

Good find.
Just looking at the street directory for Commercial Street we see plenty of shops catering to the respectable gentry.
Just walking up from Whitechapel High St. we see a Clothiers at No.11, Bootmaker at 15, a Tailor at 19, Spirit Merchants at 33, above Wentworth St. a Watchmaker at 51, several coffee rooms at various locations. Cigar manuf. at 112.
I wonder if the proprietors of these middle-class businesses also shuffled around in rags and worn out shoes, in Ben's view.

Wickerman - It’s odd that Mr. Cook is selling Albert chains, gold watches, seals, pendants, etc., right there at No. 565 Commercial Road, Whitechapel in 1884. I’ve been told it’s virtually impossible to have owned such objects, and to have worn them was to invite instant rape and murder. Note also the wine merchant on Whitechapel Road. For all Ben's talk of men in top hats, etc. I'm under the general impression that he and the Lechmere Brethren are the ones with the cartoonish vision of what East London was like in the 1880s: a relentless no-man's land of gaslight ghouls with flickering street lamps so 'feeble' that it is surprising that there was such a public outcry to install even more of them!

[Wickerman]

Abberline initially seemed to have a bit of suspician, hence he “interogated” him.

You can interrogate someone to obtain a more complete story.
A suspect is someone who is under investigation, or being sought by police.
Hutchinson was neither, but it was very likely in Abberline's experience that there was more to his story than was captured in the initial statement. That fact goes for all voluntary witnesses, they rarely truly appreciate the value of everything they see.

[Wickerman]

Why didn’t he have a basic reason for loitering outside a soon-to-be-murdered woman’s home for 45 minutes?

When people have nothing else to do, and nowhere to go, they would & did just stand around watching others. This was the East End, nosy neighbors and loiterers are quite normal.
You don't need a reason for doing nothing.

You should give people more credit than that. It’s quite clear that everyone knows precisely what you’re arguing - they’re just not at all convinced of its validity as an explanation for Hutchinson’s late arrival.

It is quite clear from the limited replies that (whoever 'they' are?) do indeed have a mistaken perception of what the public believed as the weekend progressed.
The journalists could gain no information from police. They admit they had to turn to the locals to print the prevailing 'gossip', and all that gossip on Friday was about a late morning murder.
No gossip was to be had about those cries of murder, they first appear Saturday morning, and are treated in every case with caution.

What earthly reason had Hutchinson to be “embarrassed” about providing a description of the last man seen in her company before she was murdered?

Clearly, the prevailing opinion on the street was that the man seen by G.H. was not her last client.

As I’ve tried to impress upon you ad nauseam, there is a reason Bowyer never mentioned anything at the inquest about about a man in Miller’s Court at 3.00am - he never saw one.

An opinion coming from one who appears to have no knowledge of how an inquest is conducted is less than useful.
Witnesses only answer questions, they are not allowed to run off at the mouth. The coroner expects them to not speak until they are spoken to.
As Bowyer was never asked about seeing anyone in the court at 3:00, he will not offer that info. That is quite obvious.

Who is the actual first-hand source of the story? Not Bowyer himself or he would have been quoted directly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "quoted"?
None of Bowyer's responses at the inquest are provided in quotes. So, who do you think was speaking for him?

Also, in his police statement Abberline wrote Bowyers replies in third-hand, ie; "he said", "he saw", "he did", etc.
So is Bowyer's police statement also not worthy of serious consideration?

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

Mr. Thomas Cook, no relation to the travel agent, stocked everything for the budding well-dressed Jewish man-about-town serial killer.

I'm surprised that Mister Astrakhan was not wearing a Bell's Pickle Fork around his neck. Also a silver-plated tea and coffee service, as presented in 1892 to his nemesis Chief Inspector Frederick George Abberline.

Do you think there might have been a marble bedroom clock in the package secured with a strap that he was carrying?

Merely a thought.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

For all Ben's talk of men in top hats, etc. I'm under the general impression that he and the Lechmere Brethren are the ones with the cartoonish vision of what East London was like in the 1880s: a relentless no-man's land of gaslight ghouls with flickering street lamps so 'feeble' that it is surprising that there was such a public outcry to install even more of them!

Ehhh - from where did you get the notion that "the Lechmere Brethren" have a cartoonish vision of the 1880:s London? Just being curious. There has actually been threads on which said Brethren have contributed material about the type of gas lights used and their lux values, so I am taken slightly aback by your notion. And I have personally criticized the notion that nobody would dare walk the East End streets in fine clothing. Many a time, even.
I fully realize that this is not the proper thread for it, but it would be interesting if you could expand on the issue here or on some other thread of your choice!

[Wickerman]

I do not understand. Abberline's task was to find a suspect and see if this witness was credible.And to see if he was credible he had to see if there are holes in his statement, for one by comparing his testimony to another witness's testimony and investigating this man's past history-to check his honesty/credibility. because by himself Abberline was in the dark.But maybe he did not see initially the connection between Lewis and Hutch and came to his senses later on.

--

Do you think Abberline interrogated Mary Cox, investigated her past history because she saw Kelly with a man?
Or Caroline Maxwell, who also saw Kelly with a man, and looked into her past history too?
Of course he will compare the statement of one witness with that of others, that is all part of the investigation. I fully expect he did, which is in part why he believed his story.

What "senses"?, it is easy to suggest he changed his mind when there are no further reports from Abberline.
Do you think he also changed his mind about Mary Cox's story too?

[Wickerman]

Not only did the Echo “claim to have access to exclusive sources within the Met”, they actually proved as much by making “inquiry” at the Commercial Street police station” and ascertaining from them that both the 14th November press interview and the description that appeared the previous day (minus Hutchinson’s name) “proceed(ed) from the same source”; a fact that the police - and nobody else - were able to confirm.

"The same source" was the Central News. They handled police telegraph releases, and they also interviewed G.H.
As the Central News is a public entity, the police are providing no privy information by confirming what is already in the hands of the public media.

The police were not giving anything away. It isn't just two similar descriptions. The informer was a "labourer", who met "Kelly in Commercial St. on Friday morning", in company with a man of the "same description", then you, me and everyone else will now know the name of the informer.
The Echo could just as easily enquired at the Central News for confirmation, the answer would have been the same.

You then quote:

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

You omitted the reason, Ben.
Hutch's story was the 54th suspicious person seen with Kelly.
The quote you attempted to provide, continued....
"As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance."
Echo, 13th Nov. 1888.

That was their self determined reason. Not one provided by police.

"The authorities" had already accepted his statement. And, the police do not require statements to be "given on oath". And never have.
The police accepted his statement as given, there was nothing wrong with his statement.

Where is your evidence, Jon, that a “good number of police remained behind the Astrakhan suspect”?. Can you name me one senior police official who was known to have done so, or provide any evidence that the hunt for that suspect continued after mid-November?

Your Echo source provided that very argument.

"The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder...."

There is an entire paragraph devoted to the different descriptions, first by Cox, then by Hutchinson. They conclude....

"The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox. The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

Then again, on the 19th, this two-pointed investigation continues...

"The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree, but so far they remain without any direct clue. Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance on the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion and with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache, described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer."
Echo, 19 Nov. 1888.

Clearly, neither source, Cox or Hutchinson had suffered being "discredited" on the 15th, by anyone. The investigation rode off into the sunset in two different directions.

Which is, in part, why we are here today!

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Simon,

Is there a suggestion somewhere that Abberline fabricated Hutchinson's existence?