Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

This is a real wild card! Hutchison going to town to make sure what he claimed to have saw is taken seriously by the Police, yet if he was the killer why would he be jumping up and down in the face of the law like a court jester- This is what I saw (yes I'm Jack The Ripper) I know Mary Jane Kelly (I hacked her to pieces).

Yes, these modern theories about G.H acting like a modern serial killer, injecting himself into a murder case, is an attempt to make a witness look like a killer.

Just perhaps Hutch saw what he saw and that was it. If there was any statement from anyone else to suggest MJK came out of her home after 0.200am, [I]Then[/I I might be looking closely at Hutch, but until something surfaces, I think he's only a witness probably getting 15 minutes of fame.

I'm sure he did see exactly what he claimed to see, and there are other statements referred to that Kelly was out after she met Blotchy.
The coroner does not select witnesses for amusement, he had to have a good reason to have Maxwell appear at the inquest. This selection likely reflects the dominant belief over that weekend that Kelly was murdered in the late morning.
As the police were faced with this belief in the early stages of the investigation, it is perhaps little wonder they had so few statements of Kelly being out over night. It was of little significance.

[Varqm]

Hi Abby,

Catching up - slowly - with this thread. You are dead right: boy does he want to get involved when he finally shows up! But what can we take from this?

Would he have thrown caution to the wind in this way, if he was the ripper, intent on killing for as long as possible, undetected and unidentifiable?

Less is more, and if he was guilty I'd have thought he would have avoided saying any more than he absolutely had to, but just enough to give Abberline and co no reason to question his statement, his behaviour or his status as an innocent witness, one who'd be naturally wary in the circumstances in which he claimed to find himself, battling with his conscience but finally coming forward when his conscience won the day.

The fact that he talked to the press has always bothered me. It should be telling us something, but it wasn't the smartest thing to do if he had something enormous to hide and had not yet roused any police suspicions.

But what if he had told his story to a policeman on the Sunday, thinking he was doing his bit for Mary Kelly, but got the feeling he was not being taken seriously, or later believed the constable had not even passed on the details? Could this not have been the reason he went to the police station the following day, miffed that nothing appeared to have been done yet with his information? I mean, he could have cut out the middle man and gone straight to the cop shop over the weekend, but maybe he had assumed that telling a copper on the street and being reassured would suffice?

In these circumstances I could see Hutch talking to the press to make sure his information was not going to be ignored a second time.

Love,

Caz
X

Based on numerous reports from newspapers of witnesses forwarding "suspects" and the suspect is then investigated or brought to the station and it turned out he was just drunk or his alibi/story was satisfactory and then suspect is/was released,I do not think Hutch will just be ignored.They were serious.They wanted to find the killer.
Did he tell the PC the whole story or just "i have some info" and then left his contact info? And where/who was the PC? They could check the route and find out who was on duty.The whole " I told a PC story" sound bogus.

----

[Varqm]

Just like his story of seeing a PC walked down Commercial St. side of Dorset st. and a lodger going into one of the lodging houses it was easy to say "I saw a woman passed across the street,she went inside the court". The court was his main focus after all.Hutch story was bogus,it was another day to put it mildly.
Most possibly the police was desperate and did not want to be empty-handed again,they were hoping. Its also important Dew made his "Hutch was mistaken" comment after the case was closed in 1892,when the dust has cleared.

----

[Michael W Richards]

Doesn't it concern you that Cox's story could not be verified by any publicans in nearby ale houses. No-one saw a blotchy faced man, with or without a woman like Kelly, buy ale around midnight?
Or is that something we just do not talk about?

I wouldn't say it concerns me Jon, but I will acknowledge that I put the emphasis on witnesses that have secondary corroboration to some extent. I also wouldn't assume that the tankard that he is carrying was obtained with Mary Kelly, he could have met up with her as she was coming home. He might have escorted her home from the bar as well, but maybe he just showed up, coincidentally perhaps, when she was ready to leave. Interesting that non-one later claimed to have bought Mary drinks that night, yet it seems that she did drink...and plenty.

[Busy Beaver]

I have just had another look at Hutchinson's (and Lewis) Testimony. For Hutch to have seen MJK at 2.00am, she must have ventured out about 1.35- 1.40am.
Yes we know it was a cold wet morning, raining on and off. So what is bugging me is why Mary asked Hutchison for only Sixpence? She obviously didn't solicit herself to him as she did not say "Want the Business", so I am speculating that Mary did know Hutch to ask him for a borrow when she was short (as he said in his witness statement to police) Mary was in rent arrears, but to go out on that cold night for pennies, which she could have earned previously from Blotchy and she also had clothing in her room, which she could have pawned in the morning to make up some of the rent arrears or to buy something else seems to be very odd. If she's in a hurry to get the money, Mary isn't going to waste time to solicit any Joe Bloggs in the street, he's going to have to be someone worthwhile, so here comes a wealthy looking man. How convenient such a man came along and at precisely that time in the morning. You couldn't make it up, or could you?

[caz]

Hi Caz
I would expect that if he got brushed off by the cop on the street he would have gone straight to the station.

Hi Abby,

If we could take a step back for a minute and imagine Hutch was just a reluctant witness with a story to tell, we could compare his claimed reactions with those of Robert Paul, in the wake of the Nichols murder.

As you know, Paul accompanied Cross to report the matter to a policeman, but then went to the papers afterwards with a scathing account of how PC Mizen brushed them off with a quick "all right" before continuing to knock up instead of immediately going to Buck's Row to attend to the poor woman lying there. Paul didn't go to the police station at all, but had to be sought out to attend the ongoing inquest - fashionably late.

Hutch may similarly have felt his Sunday morning cop had been less than responsive, but he wouldn't have known for sure that he hadn't passed on his account of seeing Mary Kelly on the last night of her life. The difference is that Hutch did at least put things right by presenting himself at the cop shop the following evening, before giving his account to a reporter. And let's face it, it was hardly Hutch's fault that the Kelly inquest was done and dusted with almost indecent haste and he may well have assumed it would take longer than that, giving him more time to decide what to do.

Had Robert Paul found Nichols alone, after Cross had scarpered [if guilty] or taken a different route to work [if innocent], and had still been at the scene when PC Neil had arrived, he'd have been in a far more precarious position now than Hutch, considering Paul's own track record.

As rj has repeatedly pointed out, witnesses were often very reluctant to come forward at all, especially if their own behaviour might invite unwanted scrutiny. Some theorists today insist that Hutch's behaviour was deeply questionable and his story highly implausible, making him an obvious suspect. But if we look at this another way, why would the ripper have behaved in such a suspicious manner when he had no need? But more than this, the police didn't immediately find Hutch's behaviour suspicious or his story incredible, did they? So Hutch presumably wasn't aware, or wasn't worried that they would.

If Hutch's behaviour and story really did 'stink to high heaven', and very obviously so back in 1888, then I submit it's highly unlikely that he had any involvement in the murders, because why the hell would he have come forward at all, if he couldn't do a much better and subtler job of feigning innocence? Why did he blab to the press? If he was just a liar and attention seeker he was skating on very thin ice but wasn't the ripper.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And I’d suggest Gareth that if Hutchinson’s story was true then we can almost certainly eliminate Astrakhan as a suspect. What kind of idiot would go on to kill Mary after having a guy stare at him to the point where he stooped down to look directly into his face and then watch as he disappeared into Miller’s Court with his victim?

It doesn’t say much for a Ripper suspect when we can say that he was either extremely unlikely or non-existent.

Hi HS,

I would suggest that if Flash Harry existed, he was not the killer but Kelly naturally jumped at the chance to pick up someone just like him, knowing the rent man was due in the morning. Would Hutch have known to invent someone who'd be Kelly's cup of tea?

If Flash Harry promised more than he delivered, obliging Kelly to go out again after he'd left, to try and make a bit more, she could easily have met her killer at a similar time he was prowling when he found Nichols and Chapman. The double event had taken place earlier, but that was on a Saturday night, which could have presented different opportunities or more of them.

What kind of idiot would go on to kill Kelly after allowing himself to be seen by Sarah Lewis, closely enough for her to pose a danger to him later, if he didn't propel himself into the limelight before she did it for him?

What kind of idiot would then behave suspiciously while in the limelight for the express purpose of avoiding suspicion, and describe in implausible detail an even more implausible beau for Kelly, who shouldn't have fooled Abberline for a second, if we accept the arguments put forward by Hutch theorists that such characters - if they existed at all - simply never paraded the streets of Spitalfields?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If hutchs story is true than Aman is probably jack the ripper.

I disagree. What kind of idiot... etc etc?

Plus, what kind of idiot would have worn all that flashy gear, knowing his intentions were to get down and dirty and rip Kelly to shreds? How would he have known, when setting out to find his next victim, that she would have her own room this time, where he could - at a pinch - strip off to avoid getting blood on his clothes?

Bit of a faff, I'd have thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I disagree. What kind of idiot... etc etc?

Plus, what kind of idiot would have worn all that flashy gear, knowing his intentions were to get down and dirty and rip Kelly to shreds? How would he have known, when setting out to find his next victim, that she would have her own room this time, where he could - at a pinch - strip off to avoid getting blood on his clothes?

Bit of a faff, I'd have thought.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Thanks for your well thought out and reasonable replies-I actually have no issue with anything you say.

I guess it all boils down to (for me anyway) whether you believe hutch or not. I do not.


and basically whether you think Abberline, at least initially could have been fooled by hutchs story. I think he was.

[caz]

Let’s face it, prostitutes were plentiful and a very easy target. If one looked too risky it would have been no problem to move on and find another.

Hi HS,

I realise you were addressing Abby and applying this to Flash Harry as a suspect, but doesn't it also apply to Hutch? Why would he have sniffed round Kelly's room - a prostitute he later connected himself with personally [admitting, or claiming, to have known her for three years] - and then have had to wait there for nearly an hour before finally entering to do the deed, after having allowed himself to be seen there by Sarah Lewis? Why put himself through all that when similar victim types were ten a penny?

The only reasonable explanation would be that Hutch had some urgent personal reason that night for targeting Kelly, and not any other random unfortunate, like his previous victims had presumably been.

And this is the rub for me, because I don't see Kelly as 'special' compared with the others, let alone the ripper's ultimate goal. She was just someone who, by early November, was equally desperate for money, her previous regular provider - Joe Barnett - having recently moved out, leaving her vulnerable and available and just what the predator was looking for. If Hutch [or Barnett for that matter] had a special reason for wanting her dead, I don't buy that the others had to die first, to make Kelly look like part of a madman's series - in the days when serial killing was not on most people's radar. And of course, Hutch theorists don't all see Kelly as his ultimate goal either, but argue that he may have killed again when everything cooled down again after his fifteen minutes under the spotlight.

I take your points Abby. For me though I just feel that it’s less likely that the ripper would have taken unnecessary risks. He wanted to remain at large to continue doing what he was doing.

Which again could apply to Hutch as a suspect. Once out in the open, of his own volition, he was no longer truly at large to continue his favourite game as if nothing had happened. He was a known entity who could not afford to be seen ever again at or near the scene of a murder. Either Sarah Lewis could have recognised him again or she couldn't. But Abberline surely would have done if he ever came to his attention again for any reason.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I, for one, have never assumed that Hutchinson’s alleged Sunday sighting and subsequent attempt to alert the copper were “unrelated”; far from it. I’m quite sure he was attempting to convey the impression that his encounter with the mystery PC occurred hot on the heels of his re-spotting of the suspect. Unfortunately, this makes an even greater nonsense of the PC’s bizarre inaction; not troubling himself to pursue or locate the suspect, and not even bothering to record Hutchinson’s particulars. What a negligent phuckwit.

Not lost on some, reassuringly, is the fact that Petticoat Lane had extremely obvious Jewish associations. I suggest it is far more likely that Hutchinson invented the Sunday sighting to reinforce suspicions against the Jewish community, and that he deliberately reserved the lie about the Sunday PC for the press knowing that they, unlike the police, were in no position to expose the fabrication by checking whether or not a constable actually was stationed where Hutchinson claimed. Constables patrolled meticulously delineated beats, which meant if Hutchinson’s tall tale didn’t correlate with any of them, the fabrication was easily exposed (which it clearly was, as evinced by Hutchinson’s discrediting shortly thereafter).

What’s this nonsense you keep repeating about serial killer statistics? Have you heard or read about a single study that utilises statistics garnered from all known serial cases in history? Can you show me where, when and how such information was quantified? A killer’s propensity to come forward or otherwise is entirely dependent on whether or not he even found himself in the type of compromising circumstance that might encourage such a preemptive strategy. If he does not inject himself into the investigation, it may owe simply to the absence of such a circumstance, as opposed to having an intrinsic disinclination to do so.

Hi Ben,

I've been trying to explore why Hutch the Ripper would have invented those extra details for the press, knowing that the police could - and almost certainly would - check for themselves and discover he had lied about alerting a copper on the Sunday, after allegedly seeing Flash Harry again in the Jews' Market [as Petticoat Lane/Middlesex St was also once called]. Was it really worth trying to 'reinforce suspicions against the Jewish community' in a way that would automatically undermine his credibility in the eyes of the police, when his purpose in coming forward was presumably to make them believe in his Jewish suspect and believe he was a truthful witness?

We know that PC Mizen didn't exactly leap into action when Cross and Paul reported a woman down in Buck's Row, just three weeks after Tabram's gruesome murder not a million miles away. So if Hutch did tell a copper his Flash Harry story, two days after Kelly's remains were found, is it not at least feasible in your universe that this policeman found the tale, shall we say, fanciful, or even thought Hutch was full of it? After all, it's your argument that nobody with two brain cells to rub together would accept such garbage at face value. But then it's also your argument that if the copper existed, his inaction at hearing said garbage was 'bizarre' - 'not troubling himself to pursue or locate the suspect, and not even bothering to record Hutchinson’s particulars. What a negligent phuckwit'! I'm not sure you can have it both ways. Why would he have done any of this if he was a man after your own heart and didn't believe a word of it?

Assuming the copper did exist and was not such a phuckwit after all, but was in fact as sceptical as you are about what he was hearing, did he perhaps make reassuring noises but take it no further, thinking, just as we are all meant to think today, that Hutch was a Jew-baiting liar? When he was asked later if Hutch had reported his sighting to him on the Sunday morning, did he deny it to cover his arse for not having passed on this 'implausible' sounding story? Much as PC Mizen before him seems not to have reported his encounter with informants Cross and Paul - until the latter 'outed' him in the press and slagged him off?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There were sufficient stories to influence the public that she was alive late in the morning...

...No amount of gossip is going to give him a guilty complex if these stories are accompanied by tales of her being seen alive after 9:00 Friday morning.

His 2-2:30 am liaison has no bearing on this presumed late morning, after 9:00 am, murder. That!, is what all the gossip had to be about.

Plus the fact that all the recent murder victims had apparently been discovered very shortly after their killer had departed. News of Kelly's murder would not have entered anyone's consciousness until around 11am on Friday at the earliest, so the first local gossip mongers - even before the medical men got their act together and well before the first newspaper story appeared - could be forgiven if they had assumed that she too was found not long after the killer had done his work.

How would Hutch have known any different, if the first he heard was that Kelly had been found murdered around mid-morning on the Friday? It might have taken a fair while to sink in that she could have been dead for several hours by then.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Busy,

yet if he was the killer why would he be jumping up and down in the face of the law like a court jester

Possibly for the same reason various known serial killers have inserted themselves into the investigation as witnesses; because it affords then the opportunity to “explain away” potentially incriminating connections to the victim or crime location, to keep track of the investigation, and to perhaps send police on a false scent.

[Ben]

Much like the assumption that the lighting was bad where Kelly and her client were standing, because the Hutchinson theory otherwise dies on the vine

I didn’t say the lighting was “bad” at that location, RJ. I’m quite sure it was standard illumination for the locality in 1888, perhaps even a cut above. I’m saying that Hutchinson was very unlikely to have witnessed and memorised all he alleged, given the time and conditions. This determination is based on factual data, such as the distances involved and the amount of light a Victorian gas lamp was capable of emitting, as opposed to “experimenting” in the garden.

What “Hutchinson theory” is any of this supposed to affect, anyway? Unless it escaped your notice, the majority of people who suspect Hutchinson of having lied about the above (and other details) generally dismiss him as a money-seeker or fame-grabber who probably wasn’t anywhere near the court that night, as opposed to a killer covering his tracks.

Knee-jerk dismissals of “inconvenient” evidence is indeed antithetical to good detective work, but then again so is swallowing whole transparently bogus accounts that were dismissed as such by the police at the time, all for the sake of defending our preference for a titillating toff as the ripper.

I see you’re quite happy to accept that a negligent “slacker” policeman didn’t bother taking Hutchinson’s story remotely seriously, and presumably went straight back to his doughnuts, despite a) just receiving a crucial lead at the height of the largest manhunt in history, and b) knowing full well that his superiors could track him down if Hutchinson later complained about his inactivity? I guess everyone else must wear the black hats for Hutchinson to wear a white one.

You don’t find it all problematic that he mentioned nothing of this encounter during his first “interrogation” with Abberline (who would certainly have quizzed Hutchinson on the time and location of this policeman encounter, had it truly occurred). Would a policeman on beat really have risked being that lazy and incompetent, even if predisposed that way, when he knew how quickly and easily his identity could be traced?

But no, we must accept the existence of some grossly incompetent, lazy, self-incriminating copper before we accept that Hutchinson lied about him in a transparent attempt to justify his failure to alert the police earlier. One would expect a combination of extraordinary gullibility and nativity to be the driving force behind these sorts of arguments, but in reality, they’re just further attempts at eschewing the “unknown local” killer in favour of the educated top-hatted celebrity.

It’s interesting also that according to this theory, senior detectives such as Abberline are utterly immune from criticism, whereas the lowly bobbies on beat were apparently a bunch of callous, lazy slackers.

[Ben]

Robert Sagar’s watch chain was visible in your photo because he was in a seated position and only wearing a suit jacket. If he was standing up, wearing an Astrakhan overcoat, and walking “sharply” along Commercial Street at 2.00am (as opposed to being frozen permanently in time, perfectly illuminated, for everyone to gloat at for eternity), no chain would have been visible, less still with a “red stone seal” attached.

I’m sorry to hear about your car accident. I’m afraid I’m not aware of any socioeconomic criminal profiling statistics for dink drivers, and therefore have no idea if home ownership constitutes some sort of deviation from “the profile”.

All the best,
Ben