Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

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.

Not "two people" Christer, two MEN.
No-one seriously considered the killer was a woman, so he didn't say how many women he saw. He told the press he saw no-one suspicious - no other MEN.

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.

Why should this woman (Lewis) be of any significance?

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

Ah, but you have a vested interest in not acknowledging he had the right day

[Abby Normal]

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.

one of which, of course, also implicated jews

[Abby Normal]

Not "two people" Christer, two MEN.
No-one seriously considered the killer was a woman, so he didn't say how many women he saw. He told the press he saw no-one suspicious - no other MEN.



Why should this woman (Lewis) be of any significance?



Ah, but you have a vested interest in not acknowledging he had the right day

hi wicky

Not "two people" Christer, two MEN.
No-one seriously considered the killer was a woman, so he didn't say how many women he saw. He told the press he saw no-one suspicious - no other MEN.

so I guess this explains why hutch didn't mention sarah Lewis?

glad that's been taken care of because a lot of folks try to use him not mentioning sarah lewis as some kind of reason to discredit her, or say she couldn't have been a reason why he came forward, etc.

[Wickerman]

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.

It's not just "your suggestion" though Christer. The most common criticism against Hutch on this point is to argue - "there's no other explanation but that he must have lied."
That, is conjuring up a solution for which there is no evidence for.

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.

Yes, I am well aware of your view. Which is why you also can't accept Sarah Lewis seeing Hutchinson in Dorset street. In my view this does stand in the way of your "wrong day" argument.
If Abberline had said at the time what Dew wrote 50 years later, then you would have a reasonable argument. Even Dew was not convinced his "wrong day" argument was applicable to Hutch, he presented it to explain Maxwell's sighting.

[Leighton Young]

A lot of people poo poo Hutchinsons description and i was inclined towards this oppinion until recently.. if you were going to invent a believable story i dont think you wpuld describe a toff like that.. remember this was Dorset street the roughest street in London.. a man like that would never be there so to use a character like that would be ridiculous.. so i think that it must be true.. this would also account for the detailed description... he would be fascinated by how out of place he looked and hence he would both follow him and get a very good description of the man..

[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.

That’s precisely as I see it, Abby.

[Ben]

if you were going to invent a believable story i dont think you wpuld describe a toff like that.. remember this was Dorset street the roughest street in London.. a man like that would never be there so to use a character like that would be ridiculous.. so i think that it must be true.

Slightly iffy logic there, Leighton.

If a story seems “ridiculous” and “unbelievable” the simplest explanation is that it’s false - Occam’s Razor and all that. It’s somewhat fallacious to argue that the less believable a story, the greater the chance of it being true. It’s another appeal to the “If he lied, he wouldn’t have told such an unconvincing lie, therefore he must be telling the truth” school of thought.

[Fisherman]

Not "two people" Christer, two MEN.
No-one seriously considered the killer was a woman, so he didn't say how many women he saw. He told the press he saw no-one suspicious - no other MEN.

Sorry, but I don´t buy into that, Jon. When somebody says "I saw a PC and a man entering a lodging house, but no one else", I take that as confirmation that no representative of either gender emerged. I am of the meaning that if somebody had pushed by you, more or less, to enter a passage you were monitoring, then you would mention that, since that person would have been directly connected to the very spot where a murder was committed - woman or not.

Why should this woman (Lewis) be of any significance?

Why should she NOT be? Were there no female villains in the victorian society? Could she not have been involved in some capacity? How would Hutchinson know?
The path of accepting in retrospect that Hutchinson had no reason to mention Lewis is one that I will not walk with you, I´m afraid.

Ah, but you have a vested interest in not acknowledging he had the right day

Do I? I really don´t think so. I think Lechmere was the killer, but I believe he quite possibly may have entered Marys room after Hutchinson left - even if he WAS there on the night.
And I would like to think that people can see their way through to trusting that I can judge things fairly anyway.

[Ben]

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.

Can you provide some sources for these figures, Jon? They seem astronomically high to me, and in the absence of an “1888 census” I don’t see how you could have ascertained the number of George Hutchinsons living in London in that year.

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?

Which is a bit like saying “why bother” writing a suspect book unless the author can first “prove” that his man was Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

It's not just "your suggestion" though Christer. The most common criticism against Hutch on this point is to argue - "there's no other explanation but that he must have lied."
That, is conjuring up a solution for which there is no evidence for.

A-hah! Well, then I of course agree with you. But I would prefer if you worded yourself "It´s not your suggestion" instead of "It´s not just your suggestion" - because my suggestion has very little to do with any conjuring at all. There is but one effort made by the participants of the drama left to us, when it comes to finding an explanation to Hutchinsons lowered impact as a witness, and that is Dew´s mentioning that he believed Hutchinson got the days wrong. Following that lead is - in my view - travelling as far as possible from the paths of conjure.

Yes, I am well aware of your view. Which is why you also can't accept Sarah Lewis seeing Hutchinson in Dorset street. In my view this does stand in the way of your "wrong day" argument.
If Abberline had said at the time what Dew wrote 50 years later, then you would have a reasonable argument. Even Dew was not convinced his "wrong day" argument was applicable to Hutch, he presented it to explain Maxwell's sighting.

It nevertheless remains the one suggestion that we have from those in charge and at the scene, Jon. What I think we are looking at is a Dew who, fifty years on, was still somewhat flummoxed by the affair. I believe that Hutchinson was asked about whether he saw any woman passing down the passage and denied it, and I believe that he quite possibly was also asked about where he had stood, and told the police that he never left the corner of the court. And I think that this was what made the police decide that he had not been in place when he said he had, partly because he should have seen Lewis if he was, and partly because Lewis was adamant that HER guy was on the other side of the street. But I also think that Hutchinson pressed the point that he was absolutely certain that he had the right day, and that Dew accordingly could not say that it was a certain thing that Hutchinson mistook the days - but that he always felt that this was the only logical solution. and I think it is precisely that.

I fail to see, by the way, how Lewis not seeing Hutchinson in Dorset Street stands in the way of "my wrong day argument". I would have thought that it was something that was of the essence for it...?

[Ben]

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

Indeed, Jon, and Astrakhan must have been doubly wary of that outcome considering that Stoopy McStoop-Face had brazenly gawped at his mug a couple of minutes earlier. What would have assured him that no robbery was intended? I can’t imagine “you will be comfortable” would have done the trick.

(Strictly hypothetical, of course. In reality, Astrakhan man would certainly have been accosted if sauntering the district at that hour, dressed as Hutchinson described)

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

If he took great stock on what Abberline or Anderson for that matter believed, he would discount Alice, or at least be cautious of including her because both Abberline and Anderson believed the killings stopped with Mary. Seems to me he is including Hutchinson's description because of the likeness towards the known photo's of Chapman.

Good spot, Darryl. Entirely agreed.

[Ben]

These details are easy to overplay, especially by theorists who do not want to accept that she could have gone out again.

It’s not a question of “overplaying”, Jon, but one of simple acceptance of Cox’s evidence, which described Kelly’s condition as “very much intoxicated”, which, to anyone who has ever conducted any field research on the subject, need not imply that she was staggering around and slurring her words like a bad “drunk” actor. Also, as her close neighbour and one who actually knew her, it would be sensible to defer to her own interpretation of Kelly’s extreme intoxication rather than ours.

Kelly’s subsequent activity, singing for several hours and remaining put, paints a picture of someone who had very much settled down for the evening, resigned to her stupefied state; as opposed to someone alert and compos mentis, anxious to remedy her financial situation in time for the rent collection.

It would be decidedly odd if Blotchy refused to share his ale pot - unless he was paying for hours of sex and serenading, Kelly would have given him the heave-ho if any such stinginess had taken place.

[Wickerman]

Slightly iffy logic there, Leighton.

If a story seems “ridiculous” and “unbelievable” the simplest explanation is that it’s false - Occam’s Razor and all that.....

But it didn't, that's the whole point!

Abberline's opinion is the only official opinion, and his story was not "unbelievable" to the only one who's opinion mattered.

The fact several modern theorists choose to not believe it, mostly due to ignorance in what they "believe" was suitable attire for the time & place, is irrelevant.
Modern ill-informed theory does not change the fact his story was believed at the time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just out of curiosity how important do we feel the point is?

After all, just because Abberline believed Hutchinson, it doesn’t make his statement true. Likewise, if Abberline had doubted his honesty, Hutchinson might still have been telling the truth.