Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Sam Flynn]

What "evidence" do you rely on to believe the killer removed the body parts ?

Oh, God. Not that again! Let's just stick to Hutchinson, shall we?

[Fisherman]

Hutchinson did not mention Lewis in his initial police statement, because it was not necessary for him to establish his presence, he was merely reporting an incident.

This is where I find I cannot agree with you, Jon. When we read the Daily News from the 14:th of November, we find this passage, quoting George Hutchinson:

" One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else."

So he very clearly says that he saw no one else than the PC at the end of Dorset Street and one man going into a lodging house in the street. Thereby, he effectively rules out anybody else having been present during his vigil, to the best of his knowledge. And Lewis would not have been somebody he could have missed by chance, since she would have walked right past him.

The long and the short of it is that George Hutchinson did not see Sarah Lewis on the night of the murder. Ergo, he was either intermittently blind or he was not there when Lewis passed into the court. This of course presupposes that Lewis DID pass into the court at the approximate time she says she did. If she did not, then it´s another matter altogether.

Whichever way we look upon it, the most important detail in the testimony of George Hutchinson is lacking. The one and only detail that would put it beyond doubt that he was in place on the murder night at around 2 Am to around 2.45 Am is not there.

And given the fact that he lays down that no one else was to be seen in Dorset Street during his vigil than the two men he mentioned, he is not likely to have added Lewis in a later version, after the interrogation. Plus, if he HAD made such an addition, then it would be proven that his story was correct, in which case it would never have suffered the fate to become of a much lesser importance.

Much as I see the value of your reasoning and much as I sympathize with much of what you say, I must choose to rule your whole scenario out. To me, Hutchinson did exactly what Dew suggested - he got the days wrong.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ben - Earlier in this thread you claimed that private rooms were available in the Victoria Home. Could you please post your documentation for that claim? Thanks.

The following is a little-known article from the St. James Gazette, October, 1888, describing the Victoria Home.

Note especially the phrases "the building is badly constructed for the isolation of any case of infectious disease" and also "should even one case declare itself, the whole building would have to be closed."

Both statements strongly imply that there were no private rooms...not so much as a broom closet in which to quarantine a person with an infectious disease.

Given these statements, how much privacy could Hutchinson have expected, even if this was his lodging house?

With all good wishes.

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

The following is from the Daily Telegraph, 22nd September 1888, courtesy of Simon Wood:

"It was with a view to ameliorate the condition of the poor that Lord Radstock and other gentlemen, with a purely philanthropic motive, acquired two years since a warehouse of four floors in Commercial-street, at the corner of Wentworth-street, and converted it into a model lodging-house. The success of the venture led to the acquisition of the adjoining premises, and the number of beds now provided is 500. In every respect this lodging-house - the only one of its sort in London - deserves to be imitated. First, its charges are low - viz., 4d for a single bed, or 2s per week; and 6d for a "cabin," or 3s per week. Each bed has two blankets, two sheets, and a quilt; the bedstead is of iron, and a kind of shield at the head affords a certain degree of privacy. The floor space is partitioned into rooms, containing each ten or a dozen beds; whilst in the "cabins" there is only one.

Jack London recalled the following of his stay at the Victoria Home in People of the Abyss:

”From the kitchen came the sounds of more genial life, and I ventured in to the range where the men were cooking. But the smell I had noticed on entering was stronger here, and a rising nausea drove me into the street for fresh air.

On my return I paid fivepence for a `cabin,' took my receipt for the same in the form of a huge brass check, and went upstairs…

...at ten o'clock the lights were put out, and nothing remained but bed. This was gained by descending again to the cellar, by surrendering the brass check to a burly doorkeeper, and by climbing a long flight of stairs into the upper regions.”

I trust this puts the matter beyond question; there were certainly single-occupany cabins to be had at the Victoria Home.

You’ve found a fascinating article, though. It’s interesting that the author experienced the same revulsion as Jack London at the rising odours from the subterranean kitchen.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

"It’s interesting that the author experienced the same revulsion as Jack London at the rising odours from the subterranean kitchen."

I didn't notice any revulsion in that article. "Powerful savoury odours" can be quite pleasant (he said, keenly anticipating Sunday dinner.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

If this was her regular pitch, likely most of her clients knew what to expect due to her price?
So she assumed Aman also knew where they were going?

But we can’t make the assumption that AM was a regular or even a previous customer can we? If it’s being suggested (and I’m not saying that you are suggesting it Wick) that AM was a regular customer wouldn’t there have been a decent chance of people coming forward when they read of Hutchinson’s statement?

[Ben]

True, Gareth. Perhaps London’s ex-colonial tastebuds were simply unaccustomed to good, honest East End pigs liver.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t understand this part of the quote Ben.

. the bedstead is of iron, and a kind of shield at the head affords a certain degree of privacy.

Why would the bedstead need ‘a kind of shield’ if it was situated in room where no one else could see it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What "evidence" do you rely on to believe the killer removed the body parts ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

Let’s just say that I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that the body parts were removed at any other time.

[Ben]

Hi Herlock,

I think that portion of the quote was in reference to the beds that were situated in dormitories rather than those in the cabins.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

What Abberline’s 1903 interview tellingly reveals is a total absence of any reference to star witness Hutchinson, an extraordinary thing given how much more detailed and striking his description was compared to the all others, as well as the opportunity it would have afforded Abberline to infer a connection with foreign-looking Klosowski, with his surly countenance and dark moustache. Such a glaring omission would only make sense if Hutchinson’s account was rejected long ago, which we know it was from independent evidence.

Yes, Abberline may have become confused over time in relation to comparatively minor issues; for instance we know he erroneously implied that the witnesses from Duke Street had only seen the back of the suspect (which is understandable, since one of the trio, Harry Harris, claimed only a rear view).

We can forgive him this and other memory lapses. What we can’t forgive him is the total and inexplicable obliteration from his memory of the one witness - the star witness of them all - who would have been such an obvious and glaring tool in his armoury when presenting a superficial case against Klosowski on the basis of ripper witness descriptions.

Why was Abberline relying on witnesses who had only seen their suspects’ backs when Hutchinson provided such a detailed and memorable description of his suspect’s front? It makes absolutely no sense in the context of a non-discredited Hutchinson.

Interestingly, Abberline is vindicated on at least one crucial point; the witnesses who placed their suspects’ age in the mid thirties to early forties bracket had only acquired rear views. Elizabeth Long (rear view) thought the man she saw was probably “over 40”, whereas Mary Ann Cox (largely rear view) believed the blotchy man to have been about 36.

But why is Abberline worrying about these descriptions when he was sitting on - and mysteriously not mentioning - a famous, frontal, facially detailed description of a mid-thirties foreign-looking man? Again, it makes no sense, unless...well, by now you should know the rest.

So unless we’re sticking our heads in the sand like so many ostriches, or Casebook keyboard warriors, the PMG article unquestionably and irrefutably qualifies as further evidence that Hutchinson was discredited, as indeed do the later interviews and reminisces of nearly all his former superiors. There is no other sane explanation for Abberline’s total non-mention of the most significant and Klosowski-resembling eyewitness account of them all.

Hargrave L. Adam first referenced the Hutchinson description in 1914, and he can’t have been in communication with Abberline that year, otherwise the former would have made reference to Klosowski and the Pall Mall Gazette interview. He corresponded with Anderson at that time, and discussed his conflict with Henry Smith over the identity and ethnicity of the killer, but never once mentioned Abberline or his advocacy of Klosowski.

Adam demonstrably had no contact with Abberline on the subject of witness descriptions - and probably no contact at with him at all - in 1914. His inclusion of the Hutchinson description in his ripper chapter was neither suggested nor endorsed by Abberline. So what was it doing there? Well, I think we can guess. Adam tells us that the complexion of the man Hutchinson described was “dark”, which wouldn’t be true if he was using the actual police statementas his source, which described the complexion as "pale". Evidently therefore, he was using the only source for a "dark-complexioned" Astrakhan, which was Hutchinson’s press interview, available to anyone and everyone. Suffice to say, the quoted description was not accompanied by any suggestion from the author that it was endorsed by the police.

All the best,
Ben

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excuse the ‘rustiness’ of my knowledge guys but I was wondering if either of the following had ever been suggested?

I can’t recall who, but someone suggested that Mary was seeing a man called Joe at the same time as Barnett (I think Fleming has been put forward as the man.) Has anyone ever made the point that Joe and George might have been confused as names, over time (faulty memories etc?)

Also has it ever been suggested that Hutchinson might have intended to rob AM when he emerged from Miller’s Court but just gave up after waiting?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I think that portion of the quote was in reference to the beds that were situated in dormitories rather than those in the cabins.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Fair point. It’s possible that the beds were of a standard design, suitable for a dormitory or a room.

[Busy Beaver]

"This was not a case of Kelly being dressed in her night clothes for bed. The bed & room were not warm & cosy. Both men and women of her class slept fully clothed.
It is just as likely Kelly undressed to entertain, not to sleep. She was then killed by her client"

Would the Ripper really wait for her to get comfy? I would have expected as soon as that door was closed behind them, the Ripper would strike and the rest is history (even though he is indoors.). He wouldn't know that anyone was going to walk in the door. Joe Barnett could have walked back in at anytime, unless Mary fixed the door so he couldn't.

[Abby Normal]

"This was not a case of Kelly being dressed in her night clothes for bed. The bed & room were not warm & cosy. Both men and women of her class slept fully clothed.
It is just as likely Kelly undressed to entertain, not to sleep. She was then killed by her client"

Would the Ripper really wait for her to get comfy? I would have expected as soon as that door was closed behind them, the Ripper would strike and the rest is history (even though he is indoors.). He wouldn't know that anyone was going to walk in the door. Joe Barnett could have walked back in at anytime, unless Mary fixed the door so he couldn't.

Hi busy
I go back and forth between blotchy and hutch as best bets for marys killer and one of the reasons i tend to keep going back to hutch is because of this. If blotchy... would he really wait so long to strike. Hes in there with her at 11 and yet apparently shes still alive and singing at 1:30ish.

I do place importance on the 4am cries of murder also. Would the ripper wait 2 hours, 4 hours to strike? I too find a lttle hard to beleive.

A passed out blotchy waking up and leaving, coincides nicely with hutch returning to her room 4ish, seeing her guest finally gone, and making his move.