Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

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?

No I didn't say Aman was a regular. I said "if this was her regular pitch", meaning the price of 6d?
The price must have included a tussle in the bed, as opposed to 4d for a knee-trembler.
I was suggesting Kelly may have assumed he knew from the price that she was taking him to her room, but just maybe he didn't. Which caused him to hesitate at the entrance to the passage.

One common result of picking up an unfortunate was that she would lead the client to a dark alley where accomplices would jump the client and rob him of all his possessions. It was a frequent deception to be wary of.
This may have been his first thought which caused him to pause at the entrance?

[Wickerman]

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.).......

True, but his blitz-style attack in the previous cases had to be due in part to the locations. Bucks Row, Hanbury street, Berner street and Mitre Square all exposed places where he could have been interrupted any moment.

[Wickerman]

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.

Plus, people in this part of town didn't normally have a wide choice of clothes. They generally wore all they owned, summer and winter - the same clothes.
Cox did describe the shabby state of Blotchy's attire; coat, boots and hat, with blotches and facial hair.
Sufficient, I would think, that he could be recognised if he walked into a police station.

[Wickerman]

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.....

Not to labour the point but there were thousands of people named George Hutchinson between 1880 - 1890 in the UK.
A thousand alone lived in London, approx. 500 of them in London in 1888.
Occupations range from military men, to artists, to farm laborers.

Every Casebook member could pick a different one and create a suspect based solely on his name.
Why should this be of any significance?
I don't intend to be mean to Mr Senise, but if you can't prove a factual connection between your particular choice of George Hutchinson, and the witness from 1888, then why bother?

[Wickerman]

.... that not only the Echo was doubtful about the value (not veracity, value!) of the Hutchinson story. The Star wrote "Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson..." on the 15:th, and Walter Dew in his memoirs pointed out that he believed that Hutchinson had gotten the day wrong.

Personally, I don´t believe that Hutchinson was discredited or looked upon as a liar at any stage, but I do think that a diminished value was ascribed to Hutchinsons story by the police. And, once again personally, I think that Dew was correct.

Hi Christer.
I always think it is helpful to take into account some events occurring in the background, as opposed to conjuring up a reason by itself.

We know that Dr. Bond provided his report to Anderson dated the 10th, Saturday. So Anderson was made aware of his belief that Kelly was murdered between 1-2:00 on Friday morning.

I would suspect, rather than act on this, Anderson's first thought would be to send word to Bond that they need to talk about this. Perhaps, not on Sunday being the sacred day it was to Victorians, but first thing Monday morning.
In fact Anderson may not have even seen this report until Monday morning. I can't picture Anderson working on a Sunday.

If this was the case then Scotland Yard (meaning Swanson) would not learn of Bond's report until later on Monday at the earliest. Abberline was at the inquest most of the day, and so was Dr. Phillips.

Even at the inquest the Cox suspect was not identified by the Coroner as the most likely suspect. So the first real clue for the police to the identity of the killer was by Hutchinson late on Monday evening - the 12th..
The description he gave (of Astrachan) was widely published the very next morning - the 13th.
This was the first time a genuine suspect had been promoted by the press in connection with the Kelly murder.
Astrachan was the one and only suspect for this murder.

However, by the afternoon on the same day (13th), the Echo got wind of a change in the investigation.
As we know the police were not talking about the investigation to the press in general - they all complained about this, the press had to have obtained this clue by other means.

Earlier, Warren had complained to the Home Office that journalists were making a nuisance of themselves following his detectives and re-interviewing everyone they spoke to.
This is how the press obtained their knowledge of the investigation.

As the morning papers had reported one prime suspect, then wouldn't the press expect Scotland Yard to be investigating towards that end?

Yet, there is that estimated time of death given by Dr. Bond, which by now must have been in Swanson's hands, and it became apparent that the Cox suspect must also be treated as a prime suspect.
Some Detectives would be seeking witnesses to the presence of a Blotchy character in the streets, and others asking about an Astrachan looking character, which must have been noticed by the press.

Was this apparent division in the investigation taken by the press as a diminished value of Hutchinson's story?
In the morning the Hutchinson suspect was the prime suspect, yet by the afternoon the press witnessed a divided detective force investigating two prime suspects.

The above sequence of events suggest to me that this was the case.
So, there never was anything wrong with Hutchinson's story. The police just had a second line of inquiry materialize out of the blue, and they had to follow it up.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

A point of order.

Robert Anderson was in Room 13 Millers Court for a part of the time that Bond was conducting his preliminary examination of "Mary Jane Kelly."

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

In his police statement Hutchinson says nothing about seeing anyone else in the street, so we don't know whether he did or not.

The statement he gave to the press may not be complete, I earlier gave the inquest testimony of Albert Cadoche as an example.

After Cadoche left his house in Hanbury street we that, "He saw no man or woman in Hanbury street".
So that reporter told us there was no-one in the street, not a man or a woman.
If that were the only version we had, we could reasonably argue the street was deserted at that time.

Yet, in another version we read the complete exchange between Cadoche and the Coroner:
The Coroner - Did you see a man or woman in the street?
Cadoche - No; I only saw workmen passing by to their work.

A totally different picture, because we have two different reporters writing what they believed was important.

We only have one version of the press statement by Hutchinson.
Given that women of that class were a regular feature in those backstreets through the night, how important was it to include a woman in the shadows on the other side of the street?

So with respect to Hutchinson's press statement, what did the Central News reporter believe was important?

The problem is that we have a combination of Hutchinson saying that he saw two people AND NOBODY ELSE, whereas he does not mention the one person who would have come very close to him and walked right past his nose.

If there was somebody else around, much further away and of no significance at all, I could swallow that such a person was forgotten - but not Lewis.

Sorry, but to me, the ommission to mention her tells us that Hutchinson never saw her. To me, it is really that simple.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.
I always think it is helpful to take into account some events occurring in the background, as opposed to conjuring up a reason by itself.

We know that Dr. Bond provided his report to Anderson dated the 10th, Saturday. So Anderson was made aware of his belief that Kelly was murdered between 1-2:00 on Friday morning.

I would suspect, rather than act on this, Anderson's first thought would be to send word to Bond that they need to talk about this. Perhaps, not on Sunday being the sacred day it was to Victorians, but first thing Monday morning.
In fact Anderson may not have even seen this report until Monday morning. I can't picture Anderson working on a Sunday.

If this was the case then Scotland Yard (meaning Swanson) would not learn of Bond's report until later on Monday at the earliest. Abberline was at the inquest most of the day, and so was Dr. Phillips.

Even at the inquest the Cox suspect was not identified by the Coroner as the most likely suspect. So the first real clue for the police to the identity of the killer was by Hutchinson late on Monday evening - the 12th..
The description he gave (of Astrachan) was widely published the very next morning - the 13th.
This was the first time a genuine suspect had been promoted by the press in connection with the Kelly murder.
Astrachan was the one and only suspect for this murder.

However, by the afternoon on the same day (13th), the Echo got wind of a change in the investigation.
As we know the police were not talking about the investigation to the press in general - they all complained about this, the press had to have obtained this clue by other means.

Earlier, Warren had complained to the Home Office that journalists were making a nuisance of themselves following his detectives and re-interviewing everyone they spoke to.
This is how the press obtained their knowledge of the investigation.

As the morning papers had reported one prime suspect, then wouldn't the press expect Scotland Yard to be investigating towards that end?

Yet, there is that estimated time of death given by Dr. Bond, which by now must have been in Swanson's hands, and it became apparent that the Cox suspect must also be treated as a prime suspect.
Some Detectives would be seeking witnesses to the presence of a Blotchy character in the streets, and others asking about an Astrachan looking character, which must have been noticed by the press.

Was this apparent division in the investigation taken by the press as a diminished value of Hutchinson's story?
In the morning the Hutchinson suspect was the prime suspect, yet by the afternoon the press witnessed a divided detective force investigating two prime suspects.

The above sequence of events suggest to me that this was the case.
So, there never was anything wrong with Hutchinson's story. The police just had a second line of inquiry materialize out of the blue, and they had to follow it up.

Hm. I am not all that fond of the phrase about "conjuring up a reason by itself" in relation to my suggestion for the diminished value seemingly attaching to Hutchinsons story some time after it was furnished. As a matter of fact, I believe I am in sync with the only factually presented reason given by anybody at all involved in the case. So far from conjuring it up, I believe I am actually sticking with the only possibility NOT to conjure something up.

On the whole, I can see nothing standing in the way for the suggestion of a mistaken day, other than people´s unwillingness to accept that it could have happened. It could well have, not least if Hutchinson jumped inbetween jobs and working hours - and it probably did, as far as I´m concerned.

I do not think that the two suspects were looked for with the same motivation and level of zeal - I think that once the police realized that Hutchinson never was in place on the murder night, but instead on the night before, they graded down the search for Astrakhan man - it went, quite simply, from a murder hunt to a search for a witness.

[Sam Flynn]

Hutch murders Alice Mackenzie, flees London, fakes the credentials of an "able seaman" (needing a minimum of two years experience) in order to bum a lift on the Ormuz and thus escape to Australia

Where it's possible that he was into "bumming" young boys.

It's not the same dude.

Quite.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No I didn't say Aman was a regular. I said "if this was her regular pitch", meaning the price of 6d?
The price must have included a tussle in the bed, as opposed to 4d for a knee-trembler.
I was suggesting Kelly may have assumed he knew from the price that she was taking him to her room, but just maybe he didn't. Which caused him to hesitate at the entrance to the passage.

One common result of picking up an unfortunate was that she would lead the client to a dark alley where accomplices would jump the client and rob him of all his possessions. It was a frequent deception to be wary of.
This may have been his first thought which caused him to pause at the entrance?

Thanks for the clarification Wick

[Ben]

Hi BB,

I doubt the Ripper would get into the world of story making. He killed quick and with little fuss. Five minutes to meet, verysmall talk and kill victim number 4. A little longer with victim 5 as he had the relative safety of being indoors.
Hutch throwing himself into the foray makes the Ripper look quite stupid.

And yet the serial killers who have “thrown themselves into the foray (sic)” by attempting to derail the investigation through some form of subterfuge have traditionally been amongst the more organised and intelligent, whereas the ones who carry out “blitz” style attacks and ensure that prior victim contact and inveiglement are kept to a studied minimum are those who are perceived as lacking in confidence, disorganised, and with lower IQs.

I don’t see anything in the killer’s pre-crime behaviour at other murder scenes that would argue against the likelihood of him coming forward under a false guise, as other serial killers have done, if the circumstances allowed for and encouraged such behaviour. He certainly didn’t have trouble using deception to lure his victims, as Lawende’s evidence (and others’) makes fairly clear.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

And all of this under his own name, George Hutchinson. Why exactly would he do that, Ben

Why wouldn’t he?

Notwithstanding the extremely close proximity of the Victoria Home to the McKenzie murder scene, there was nothing him to link him directly to that murder. So what danger would have arisen from using his own name? The police weren’t exactly monitoring the docks to see if discredited ripper witnesses were attempting to fake seaman credentials in order to secure passage to Australia.

Two years training was required of a genuine able seaman, not a member of a “bodge” crew wiling to make up the numbers in the absence of the actual professionals, who were then on strike.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Excellent find, Abby!

So no reason at all, in other words, to assume that Abberline’s recollections of the ripper eyewitness evidence were tinkered specifically to address claims in an article he hadn’t read, and every reason to conclude from his comments that he had already compiled his musings on the eyewitness evidence (sans any mention of Hutchinson) in a document intended for the consumption of Melville Macnaghten.

Glad that’s finally sorted!

[Abby Normal]

Hi BB,



And yet the serial killers who have “thrown themselves into the foray (sic)” by attempting to derail the investigation through some form of subterfuge have traditionally been amongst the more organised and intelligent, whereas the ones who carry out “blitz” style attacks and ensure that prior victim contact and inveiglement are kept to a studied minimum are those who are perceived as lacking in confidence, disorganised, and with lower IQs.

I don’t see anything in the killer’s pre-crime behaviour at other murder scenes that would argue against the likelihood of him coming forward under a false guise, as other serial killers have done, if the circumstances allowed for and encouraged such behaviour. He certainly didn’t have trouble using deception to lure his victims, as Lawende’s evidence (and others’) makes fairly clear.

All the best,
Ben

Indeed ben. And considering what happened the night of the double event and the risk he took in bringing the bloodied apron and leaving it where he took the time to write the gsg, then one can see hutchs involving himself as a witness in the next murder as an escalation of his subterfuge.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

A point of order.

Robert Anderson was in Room 13 Millers Court for a part of the time that Bond was conducting his preliminary examination of "Mary Jane Kelly."

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

Yes, and Anderson being there part of the time suggests what, to you?