Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Sam, I'm ordering the book as we speak. Cant wait to read it. I've thought for quite some time that the murderer wanted us to think that he was Jewish. Especially after Chapman, with all the Jew bashing that went on in Hanbury St. just following the murder. Then Stride just outside of the Jewish Workingman's Club. And the with Eddowes last being seen talking to a man (almost certainly the Ripper) in the alley of the Great Synagogue. And we can't forget about Goulston St, where the Jewish Bath House was and not to mention the entire street was filled with Jewish residents.
Since I haven't read the book yet, is there a Jewish connection with Mary Kelly? Or is Hutchinson the Jewish connection? Obviously trying to pin her murder on a Jewish man if he's making it all up.

Yes Stephens book is good-I read it. It includes his find- aussie Hutch, whom I believe is our hutch and if ever there is a photo of the ripper-this is it.


and yes the jewish connection with mary is Hutchs Aman. The only direct evidence in the case that incriminates jews is the GSG and then with the next kill the jewish Aman.

[Sam Flynn]

Neither Kelly nor Hutchinson (whoever either of them were) are known to have had any direct Jewish connections, though.

[Simon Wood]

The fictitious Mr. Astrakhan enjoyed his fifteen minutes of fame . . .

"I have interrogated him [George Hutchinson] this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true."

Frederick George Abberline, 12th November 1888 report.

Star 15th November 1888—

"Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrakhan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached." [14th November description]

[Wickerman]

I KNOW!! Crazy, right!?! Especially after it was in the newspapers for the Eddowes murder that the suspect was described wearing a Red Handkerchief around his neck! Strange...

Hell yeh, after all it had to be the only red handkerchief in all of London.
Why wouldn't he wear it a second time and risk being recognized.
Everybody would...right?

[Abby Normal]

Hell yeh, after all it had to be the only red handkerchief in all of London.
Why wouldn't he wear it a second time and risk being recognized.
Everybody would...right?

he probably had it in his pocket the night of Marys murder and maybe was planning on using it to bring goodies home in. Got lucky that mary had her own place and might have left it there.

[Wickerman]

The fictitious Mr. Astrakhan enjoyed his fifteen minutes of fame . . .

"I have interrogated him [George Hutchinson] this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true."

Frederick George Abberline, 12th November 1888 report.

Star 15th November 1888—

"Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrakhan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached." [14th November description]

Fair enough Simon, that was on the 15th, right?, but then please explain the continued hunt for the Hutchinson suspect....

I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance.
Evening News, Star, 16th Nov. 1888.

The police have not relaxed their endeavours to hunt down the murderer in the slightest degree; ..... Some of the authorities are inclined to place most reliance upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache.
Echo, 19 Nov.

Four days after the false 'discredited' story, the authorities are still searching for Astrachan.

Why would you believe a story that contradicts the evidence?

[Sam Flynn]

Four days after the false 'discredited' story, the authorities are still searching for Astrachan.

According to the Echo of 19th Nov, which you quote, only some of the authorities favoured Astrakhan Man, implying that other authorities were "discrediting" Hutchinson's description to a greater or lesser extent by that point.

[Simon Wood]

Evening News, 16th November 1888—

"I [Mr. Galloway] was very much struck with his appearance, especially as he corresponded, in almost every particular, with the man described by Mary Ann Cox. He was short, stout, about 35 to 40 years of age. His moustache, not a particular heavy one, was of a carroty colour, and his face was blotchy through drink and dissipation."

Evening News, 17th November 1888—

“The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen, and that he was, as a matter of fact, acting in concert with them in his ‘mysterious movements.’"

Echo, 19th November 1888—

"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 upon the statement made by Hutchinson as to his having seen the latest victim with a gentlemanly man of dark complexion, with a dark moustache. Others are disposed to think that the shabby man with a blotchy face and a carrotty moustache described by the witness Mary Ann Cox, is more likely to be the murderer."

The police were hunting the murderer; not a particular murder suspect, as "they remain without any direct clue."

Some police fancied the fictional Mr. Astrakhan, others fancied Mr. Blotchy.

Was Mr. Blotchy, who had been "acting in concert" with the police, more likely to have been the murderer?

Have you ever read more patent nonsense?

[Wickerman]

According to the Echo of 19th Nov, which you quote, only some of the authorities favoured Astrakhan Man, implying that other authorities were "discrediting" Hutchinson's description to a greater or lesser extent by that point.

Gareth.
There were two suspects after the inquest, Blotchy & Astrachan.

How many suspects in the Berner St. murder? - we have the man seen by Schwartz, we have the man seen by PC Smith - two suspects.
Not forgetting the other men seen by both Marshall & Brown.

The police do not pursue one suspect at a time.
Also, we know the City police had their preferred suspect, and the Met. had their's.

If Hutchinson had been discredited, no-one would be looking for him at all, yet they were.

[Wickerman]

Some police fancied the fictional Mr. Astrakhan, others fancied Mr. Blotchy.

Was Mr. Blotchy, who had been "acting in concert" with the police, more likely to have been the murderer?

Have you ever read more patent nonsense?

When "some authorities" are hunting for Astrachan, then clearly Hutchinson cannot be discredited. Unless you have a unique interpretation of what "discredited" means.
If as usual you mean his story was found to be false or unreliable - no police force is going to follow up on his story.
We know how they dismissed Packer because he was unreliable, yet they were still looking for Hutchinson's suspect four days later.

The fact others are looking for Blotchy is not a reflection on Hutchinson, not until Blotchy is located and questioned, and if he has an alibi.
Both were legitimate suspects, and until both were located the police could not know which was the real suspect.

[Simon Wood]

Blotchy appears to have been working with, or for, the police, so he wasn't a legitimate suspect.

The police were not looking for "Hutchinson's suspect four days later."

How can a fictional creation be a murder suspect, unless, of course, his name is Jack the Ripper.

[Wickerman]

Blotchy appears to have been working with, or for, the police, so he wasn't a legitimate suspect.

The man Galloway saw was never ID'd as Blotchy. Whatever the man was doing was never satisfactorily explained.

The police were not looking for "Hutchinson's suspect four days later."

If you are prepared to accept a simple press story by the Star, on what grounds can you dismiss another press story that shows it was wrong?

How can a fictional creation be a murder suspect, unless, of course, his name is Jack the Ripper.

Your opinion is hardly definitive.
On Dec. 6th Abberline though they had caught JtR at last. Their suspect was a middle-aged Jew, who wore an Astrachan coat, and was known to sport a fake gold watch chain - Joseph Isaacs.

Abberline clearly had Hutchinson's suspect in mind nearly a month after the murder.
People actually did dress that way, maybe you were not aware of it?

[RedBundy13]

What makes you say that the Bath House was Jewish? I was under the impression that it was open to all, and managed by the Vestry of Whitechapel.

Yes my mistake for saying that it was only a Jewish Bath when it was in fact open to everyone although it was predominately Jews who swam and bathed there (at least 2/3rds Jewish) and the same goes for Goulston St., I didn't mean for it to sound like it was ONLY Jews who lived on Goulston St. because I'm sure that there were other people living there besides just the Jewish residents. But again, predominantly Jewish.
Heres a link for the 2/3rds Jewish Bathing Statement: https://www.spaexperience.org.uk/abo...ast-london-spa
And I see that that Link is out of date: Heres some of it anyways:
In 1889 Charles Booth observed:

The newcomers have gradually replaced the English population in whole districts, Hanbury Street, Fashion Street, Pelham Street, and many streets and lanes and alleys have fallen before them; they have introduced new trades as well as new habits and they live and crowd together.
As well as setting up small synagogues, like those in Eastern Europe the Jews opened shops selling kosher food. Posters and newspapers were printed in Yiddish and Jews also introduced the custom of “Russian steam baths”.

The steam baths were were an important part of social and religious life and were mostly used by men following work on a Friday evening at the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath, before they went to synagogue for prayers. In 1888, The secretary of the Jew’s Temporary shelter wrote that there were 5 exclusively Jewish East London Spas. He named one in Little Alie-street, Whitechapel, one in Heneage-lane, Bevis Marks, and one in Steward-street, Spitalfields, and two others. Mr Montague also wrote that there were five Jewish bathing establishments within half a mile of Aldgate and that these were entirely attended and supported by “Jews and Jewesses” and that the Jewish swimming club, connected with the Goulstone-street Bath, was the largest in the East End, and that at least two thirds of the people who bathed there were Jews.

[RedBundy13]

Hell yeh, after all it had to be the only red handkerchief in all of London.
Why wouldn't he wear it a second time and risk being recognized.
Everybody would...right?

I don't think he was wearing though the 2nd time, that is if I'm remembering it correctly? Didn't Kelly supposedly say something about forgetting her handkerchief and A-Man pulled a "red" one out of his pocket to give to her? IMO, theres only two explanations for him bringing that up. 1: Because that really was what he witnessed and he was just relaying what he saw. or 2: He needed something to give the detectives that could link Kellys murder with a previous one that was committed by The Ripper. ie: Red hanky which was seen being worn on the suspect who was witnessed talking to Eddowes down the Great Synagogue alley leading into Mitre Square just prior to her death.
So basically what I'm saying that either Hutch was telling the truth and he gave by far the best, most detailed description of the Suspect yet to date or he was lying (or greatly exaggerating) about either the whole thing or just some parts of it. And if that is the case, and he was lying then that should be followed with "Why"? Which is where everything gets complicated because there are SO many reasons for him to lie or exaggerate what he did or did not see. Some of those are: Possibly getting money from the newspapers? Covering for himself by trying to throw the investigation off track by having the detectives look in totally the wrong direction? Or maybe covering for someone else? I'm sure we could come up with 20 more, at least.
For me, I'm liking the reason that he was lying to cover for himself more and more everyday. Would I bet the farm on it? Nope, not yet at least

[Sam Flynn]

If as usual you mean his story was found to be false or unreliable - no police force is going to follow up on his story.

From the outset, some authorities questioned the hoax letters and tape sent to the police by "Wearside Jack" during the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper, but that didn't stop George Oldfield from continuing to believe them.

We know how they dismissed Packer because he was unreliable, yet they were still looking for Hutchinson's suspect four days later.

All we can say with certainty is that there was a report in the press to that effect four days later, by which time it could have been old news.