Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi,
Checking through some old messages this morning [ private messages] I came across one who I clearly did not read properly .
In the message I was told that Neil Hutchinson , son of Arthur, and nephew of Reg, claimed on Karen Trenouth site at least six years ago, that his uncle Reg was on the radio in the 1970's.
Which is what I have been saying for years.
I have not seen the said web site, neither read the statement for myself , but I find at least this some conformation .
Interesting that a family member confirms.?
Regards Richard.

Richard,

This is probably something that you’ve already seen but.....

https://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/page/10/

[richardnunweek]

Hi Herlock,
I certainly have not seen this before, , its amazing.
I have been saying for many many years, that the programme was called ''The man that saw Jack''.
And I mentioned it was around 1974.
Everyone on Casebook have doubted , surely this is further conformation.
Reg Hutchinson mentioned about his father some 18 years before ''The Ripper and the Royals'' was published.
Thanks again.
Regards Richard.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

Interestingly, Stephen Senise posits in his excellent book that Hutchinson was both the wideawake-wearing man seen by Lewis and the blotchy character seen by Cox. I suppose it depends just how prominent these “blotches” were, or whether it was a mistaken or exaggerated impression on Cox’s part. If the former, Abberline would probably have spotted it and smelt a rat, as Abby points out.

Hi Ben !!

Yes, that`s interesting.
Cox was a lot closer to Blotchy than Lewis was too her loiterer.

Was it Senises`s Jew Baiter book or the False Flag one ?

[Sam Flynn]

Richard,

This is probably something that you’ve already seen but.....

https://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/page/10/

What's the relevant bit, Herlock? I've scrolled through several articles, but can't find any connection to Hutchinson.

[rjpalmer]

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

I suspect it is because these 'cabins' were not the fully enclosed private rooms that Ben is claiming. Why use the grandiose term 'cabin' if it was, in fact, an enclosed room? It sounds a bit fishy, no? In truth, the article clearly states that were merely partitioned-off sections in a common room, which may have been nothing more than sheets hanging from hooks. This makes sense in regards to the St. James Gazette article., ie., the clear statement that there were no rooms in the entire building that would suit the purpose of a quarantine. If they were truly private and entirely contained, they could have been used for that purpose. Ergo they weren't. Still, they must have been more private than the common ward.

Further, these alleged private suites cost 3 shillings a week, which rather gives the game away. Even Kelly's hell-hole that was little more than a broom closet cost 4 shillings, 6 p. per week, so it is highly unlikely these private rooms would have been even up to that standard.

Further, the Home must have kept records of which bed/cabin was paid for etc., so Ben's suggestion that dozens of men were shuffling in and out at 1.30 in the morning is very much to be doubted. It sounds like they had a full-house by dinner time. A later night straggler on a night of two murders would have been duly noted by the others, would they not?

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ,

What Abberline’s 1903 interview tellingly reveals is a total absence of any reference to star witness Hutchinson, an extraordinary thing...

Ugh. Give it a rest, Ben. It's not an 'extraordinary thing' in the least.

You keep repeating a bad argument that grotesquely misuses and misunderstands Abberline’s March 1903 interview in order to make a false point about Hutchinson. Such a misuse pegs you as a “Suspectologist” rather than a historian. Is that what you want to be?

Hutchinson is NOT a ‘glaring ommision’ because he was not relevant to the point Abberline was making. Hutch is not mentioned, just as Schwartz, Lawende, Long and everyone else is not mentioned. They are all “glaring” omissions because Abberline is not discussing individual witnesses or weighing their strengths and weaknesses. He merely makes a very brief point about a peaked cap and 'foreign looking' suspects. As Helena Wojtczak has amply demonstrated, the interview Abberline gave to the PMG reporter (who was almost certainly his friend John Collins) was in direct response to the Daily Chronicle piece of the previous day, March 23rd that described Klosowski wearing a peaked cap. That’s it. Full stop. And it is undeniable because the PMG references the Daily Chronicle explicitly at the start of the interview. Hutchinson mentioned no such peaked cap, ergo he was not relevant.

By the way, Abby is wrong. Hutchinson did use the phrase "foreigner" to describe his suspect; he did so in the interview he gave to the Central News. So, in this sense, Abberline DOES reference Hutchinson in the PMG interview; he lumps him in with everyone else that had described the Ripper as a "foreigner." So again, there is no 'glaring' ommission. Had the article been about Deeming, the omission might have been real. It was not about Deeming. It was about Klosowski of the alleged naval cap.

As for Senise, do you accept that George Hutchinson was in the Royal Navy for a minimum of two years? Or do you believe that Senise misidentified Hutchinson? Just curious. Edward Stow on Howard Brown's site has made some illuminating posts on this issue. Have his points ever been disputed? It seems pretty obvious that the Australian Hutchinson could not have been the 'groom' and 'casual laborer' described in November 1888 if he was a navy man of long standing. Have a great weekend.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Perhaps the blotchy looking face was induced by alcohol intake with someone with high blood pressure

[Abby Normal]

I don`t know about this, Abby. He could have left the room as a client, observing how to open the door, and sneaked back in as the killer, knowing Mary was alone in bed.

hi jon
but why-he already had her right where he wanted her. leaving would risk all sorts of problems in losing his prey.

[Abby Normal]

Ugh. Give it a rest, Ben. It's not an 'extraordinary thing' in the least.

You keep repeating a bad argument that grotesquely misuses and misunderstands Abberline’s March 1903 interview in order to make a false point about Hutchinson. Such a misuse pegs you as a “Suspectologist” rather than a historian. Is that what you want to be?

Hutchinson is NOT a ‘glaring ommision’ because he was not relevant to the point Abberline was making. Hutch is not mentioned, just as Schwartz, Lawende, Long and everyone else is not mentioned. They are all “glaring” omissions because Abberline is not discussing individual witnesses or weighing their strengths and weaknesses. He merely makes a very brief point about a peaked cap and 'foreign looking' suspects. As Helena Wojtczak has amply demonstrated, the interview Abberline gave to the PMG reporter (who was almost certainly his friend John Collins) was in direct response to the Daily Chronicle piece of the previous day, March 23rd that described Klosowski wearing a peaked cap. That’s it. Full stop. And it is undeniable because the PMG references the Daily Chronicle explicitly at the start of the interview. Hutchinson mentioned no such peaked cap, ergo he was not relevant.

By the way, Abby is wrong. Hutchinson did use the phrase "foreigner" to describe his suspect; he did so in the interview he gave to the Central News. So, in this sense, Abberline DOES reference Hutchinson in the PMG interview; he lumps him in with everyone else that had described the Ripper as a "foreigner." So again, there is no 'glaring' ommission. Had the article been about Deeming, the omission might have been real. It was not about Deeming. It was about Klosowski of the alleged naval cap.

As for Senise, do you accept that George Hutchinson was in the Royal Navy for a minimum of two years? Or do you believe that Senise misidentified Hutchinson? Just curious. Edward Stow on Howard Brown's site has made some illuminating posts on this issue. Have his points ever been disputed? It seems pretty obvious that the Australian Hutchinson could not have been the 'groom' and 'casual laborer' described in November 1888 if he was a navy man of long standing. Have a great weekend.

Hi RJ

Hutch is not mentioned, just as Schwartz, Lawende, Long and everyone else is not mentioned.

not mentioned by name-but surely their suspect peaked cap man is-which is point Abberline was making. the ripper and "the peaked cap he is said to have worn". aman was not wearing a peaked cap. Its not rocket science RJ and it is a glaring mismatch as well as an omission that Abberline dosnt mention hutchs suspect in any way or hutch for that matter-this supposed great witness.

By the way, Abby is wrong. Hutchinson did use the phrase "foreigner" to describe his suspect; he did so in the interview he gave to the Central News.

the best way to do history (as you keep saying) RJ is to go with police statements over newspaper accounts. everyone knows that. and in his police statement nada about foreigner-just a jewish man.

It was about Klosowski of the alleged naval cap.

of which Aman was not wearing.

As for Senise, do you accept that George Hutchinson was in the Royal Navy for a minimum of two years? Or do you believe that Senise misidentified Hutchinson? Just curious. Edward Stow on Howard Brown's site has made some illuminating posts on this issue. Have his points ever been disputed? It seems pretty obvious that the Australian Hutchinson could not have been the 'groom' and 'casual laborer' described in November 1888 if he was a navy man of long standing.

I think Stephen nailed the right hutch-looks just like the descriptions, leaves around the time right after the last ripper murder, had sex crime and seems to have a connection to the navy or at least an "able seaman" (peaked cap).

theres no reason he couldn't also have been a groom or labourer also and or after being a sailor. Or he could have lied about those professions.


have a great weekend!

[Herlock Sholmes]

What's the relevant bit, Herlock? I've scrolled through several articles, but can't find any connection to Hutchinson.

Sorry Gareth, I didn’t look at it in detail as I was just about to head out. I only posted it because it mentions a 6 part tv show which I thought might have provided some kind of link to, or information about, the Hutchinson interview.

Apoligies to all if I gave the impression that I’d made a great discovery. It wasn’t my intention.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't believe that Aussie George was the right Hutchinson. Speaking personally, I KNOW he wasn't.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I cannot comprehend how the conformation that a radio programme was aired in the 1970's called ''The man that saw Jack'' is not relevant,
I have been saying since my introduction to Casebook[1999], that I heard such a programme in the mid 1970's , I even mentioned the title which matches.
It .
As i said also Neil Hutchinson , nephew of Reg, mentions also the his uncle , appeared on a radio programme.
My reasoning is Reg was telling his fathers tale , long before The Ripper and the Royals was published.and its not a modern day invention.
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

I don't believe that Aussie George was the right Hutchinson. Speaking personally, I KNOW he wasn't.

Hi Sam
I dont have the same personal conviction on being right as you do (youre pretty good at that) but i think theres a very good chance that he is the right hutch.

and whether right or wrong we owe a debt of gratitute to Stephen on his research on the subject.

[DJA]

Perhaps the blotchy looking face was induced by alcohol intake with someone with high blood pressure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction

[rjpalmer]

Perhaps these points are too subtle, Abby; you're going about it with a sledge hammer instead of a scalpel.

Abberline does not mention the Astrakhan suspect, because he was not relevant to the description of Klosowski wearing a peaked cap. Yes. True. We agree to that. There was no need to mention him, because he did not fit the description that was being discussed by the Daily Chronicle.

But this in no way, shape, or form, indicates that Hutchinson was “discredited,” which is what Ben and others have been trying to claim on this thread. It only means that his description did not match the one that was being “plumped for” in March 1903.

You are making this omission mean more than it actually means. You are implying that this is evidence that Hutchinson was proven to be a liar, which is certainly not true, no matter how many times you keep repeating it.

Look at it this way. If a man was convicted of murdering prostitutes in 1900 and was wearing a deerstalker cap, Abberline might well have said in passing: “MY gawd! A deerstalker! That’s what the lady described in Hanbury Street! Maybe this man was also the Ripper!”

Would that simple statement be evidence that Abberline dismissed and debunked the witness Joseph Lawende as a liar? He is liar because he described no such deerstalker?

Of course not. But that is what you and others are arguing in regard to Hutchinson. It’s bogus. It’s a bad argument.

And no, it’s not rocket science. It’s obvious.

the best way to do history (as you keep saying) RJ is to go with police statements over newspaper accounts.

Yup, and in the internal police report Abberline states directly that he interrogated Hutchinson at length and believed him. But according to multiple posts on this thread we are supposed to ignore that and go with a vague report in The Echo.

Good grief!