Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

Nonsense.There is nothing to be gained by mentioning the lodger and policeman either.But the woman could help,not the other two.The reason/curiosity Hutch was looking up the court that woman,who went in the court a few seconds later,could answer and could have observed more.He wanted to help,using most of his initial statement to Badham describing a possible "suspect".

-----

If he gave her name & address it might help, how on earth is he going to do that? This was just a woman in the shadows on the other side of the street.
Hutch wasn't on trial, he was not defending himself. No-one told him to prove he was there.
Like I said, he mentioned men in the street because only men were under consideration as the killer. He saw no suspicious men in Dorset street.

[Wickerman]

You’re still not getting to grips with the basic concept of nondescript people and objects being recognised again. What if there was nothing in particular to distinguish him from other nondescript looking people?

It's precisely because the description she gave was 'non-descript' that he had nothing to worry about.

It’s also nonsense to argue that Lewis couldn’t have seen his face from 20 feet away (whereas Hutchinson is perfectly capable of noticing the pattern on a handkerchief from 120 feet away apparently!).

What is "nonsense" is your repeated assertion that he was 120ft away when he saw & heard the exchange. He was standing across the street.
Another one of your 'straw-man' arguments.

Sorry, Jon, I can’t even begin to decipher what you’re talking about here. I was responding directly to the argument that he would not have engaged in X or Y activity if he was the killer, and I thought my point was a reasonable one; why would he “use” previous descriptions of himself to help create a fictional suspect?

You are changing horses in mid-stream.
As you don't argue that Hutch was the killer, only a timewaster, then your reply is evasive.
As a timewaster, not the killer, then those previous 'wanted' descriptions are not of him. So, why didn't he use them?

Not without getting caught, which I certainly would have been if I had been as absurdly conspicuous and unsubtle as you claim Hutchinson was,...

What makes you think they didn't see him?
He intentionally looked under the man's hat, stared him in the face, as he passed by. Why shouldn't Hutch make it clear he was following him?
Was Hutch trying to intimidate Astrachan?

So it’s my fault that Hutchinson’s own account of his own location during the “lost my handkerchief” conversation made it impossible for him to hear it? It couldn’t be the simplest and most obvious explanation, that he made up the encounter.

It makes no sense to invent a scenario that could not have happened. So, obviously, Hutch did walk down Dorset street to stand where Sarah Lewis placed him.
That's why it is your "fault' that the scenario does not make sense.

Why would she mention the time of 2.30am if it didn’t relate to her arrival? She was “there” at 3.00, 3.30, 4.00, 4.30 etc too - why didn’t she randomly volunteer the information that she was in the same room at those times? What was so special about 2.30 that it warranted inclusion in her statement and testimony?

Because 2:30 is the nearest time to her arrival, she doesn't have to say she was there at 3:00, 3:30, etc. if she was there at 2:30. That question also made no sense Ben.

Considerably more than you, Jon. If there’s one thing your omnipresence on Casebook Hutchinson discussions makes clear, it’s that opportunities for outdoor recreation must be at a premium.

So you don't see me walking around with an ipad?
Ah well, maybe not. The point being, you are the one who thinks a 12 mile walk is extreme, whereas I do not. Regardless whether I walk 12 miles a day or not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll persist...

Was Astrakhan Man Jack The Ripper or was Hutchinson Jack The Ripper? Or were neither of them...?

With AM the question is more one of existence and the reliability of Hutchinson’s evidence as that is all that we have. If AM was the Ripper then we have a killer not at all concerned with drawing attention to himself or at least making himself very easily describable and recognisable. A killer quite happy to dress as a semi-toff in one of the most down-at-heel and dangerous areas in London. Yet despite this there was no sighting, or suspected sighting, of him at or near to any of the other murder sites. Hutchinson describes his strange action of stooping down to look into AM’s face. He doesn’t mention Mary telling him to “sod off” because he might be at risk of scaring off her client which there must have been a more than reasonable chance of her doing. And in that poorly lit street, with this fleeting glimpse he even describes AM’s eyelashes. There maybe other examples of this but can anyone name any witness or witnesses in any other crime investigation where under similar circumstances that Sherlock Holmes described the suspects eyelashes? Then we have, according to Hutchinson, a killer who despite having this annoying bloke stooping down to get a good close look at his face then goes on to commit a horrible murder. Again not bothered in the least about being identified. Surely this should lean us very heavily in favour of this being, at the very least, exaggerated and therefore unreliable or, at worst, simply unbelievable? Yes, Abberline felt his testimony was honest. So Hutchinson gave the ‘impression’ of being honest to a senior police officer under tremendous pressure from his superiors and from the public to find the ripper. A public that largely felt that the ripper was likely to be foreign or specifically Jewish (just like the description given by Hutchinson.) How would Abberline have been criticised if he’d have dismissed Hutchinson as unreliable?

And then we have Hutchinson the ripper who, despite the randomness of the other murders, appears to be obsessively determined that it had to be Mary Kelly that would die that night. He was quite prepared to loiter about for ages for her to become ‘available’ when a simple stroll would have easily have found him another victim. He would then stand across a fairly narrow street from Miller’s Court where he was observed and, as he was looking toward the entrance to the court, he would likely have known that he’d been observed, yet despite this he would still go on to murder. And if he was telling the truth about knowing Mary is it not possible that he might have even be known by some in the area thus increasing his risk of being identified.

Isn’t it more likely that Hutchinson was trying to paint himself as a Good Samaritan looking out for a poor unfortunate that he occaisionally gave money to (money that he was unlikely ever to have spare) out of the goodness of his heart. That he let this dodgy AM know that “yes, I’ve got my eye on you mate.” That he stood bravely on guard outside Miller’s Court to keep an eye on her only to leave when he believed that Mary had asked AM to stay the night?

For me everything points to Hutchinson being a fantasist who gave the police a ridiculously detailed description of a non-existent potential ripper. A description that tallied with the common perception of the ripper as a foreigner; a Jew. Or someone from the better levels of society. I think that he did this because he knew that he’d been seen and so he decided to paint himself in the role of Mary’s protector rather than someone who either had a ‘thing’ for her or someone that was hoping for a roof over his head for the night.

[Abby Normal]

I’ll persist...

Was Astrakhan Man Jack The Ripper or was Hutchinson Jack The Ripper? Or were neither of them...?

With AM the question is more one of existence and the reliability of Hutchinson’s evidence as that is all that we have. If AM was the Ripper then we have a killer not at all concerned with drawing attention to himself or at least making himself very easily describable and recognisable. A killer quite happy to dress as a semi-toff in one of the most down-at-heel and dangerous areas in London. Yet despite this there was no sighting, or suspected sighting, of him at or near to any of the other murder sites. Hutchinson describes his strange action of stooping down to look into AM’s face. He doesn’t mention Mary telling him to “sod off” because he might be at risk of scaring off her client which there must have been a more than reasonable chance of her doing. And in that poorly lit street, with this fleeting glimpse he even describes AM’s eyelashes. There maybe other examples of this but can anyone name any witness or witnesses in any other crime investigation where under similar circumstances that Sherlock Holmes described the suspects eyelashes? Then we have, according to Hutchinson, a killer who despite having this annoying bloke stooping down to get a good close look at his face then goes on to commit a horrible murder. Again not bothered in the least about being identified. Surely this should lean us very heavily in favour of this being, at the very least, exaggerated and therefore unreliable or, at worst, simply unbelievable? Yes, Abberline felt his testimony was honest. So Hutchinson gave the ‘impression’ of being honest to a senior police officer under tremendous pressure from his superiors and from the public to find the ripper. A public that largely felt that the ripper was likely to be foreign or specifically Jewish (just like the description given by Hutchinson.) How would Abberline have been criticised if he’d have dismissed Hutchinson as unreliable?

And then we have Hutchinson the ripper who, despite the randomness of the other murders, appears to be obsessively determined that it had to be Mary Kelly that would die that night. He was quite prepared to loiter about for ages for her to become ‘available’ when a simple stroll would have easily have found him another victim. He would then stand across a fairly narrow street from Miller’s Court where he was observed and, as he was looking toward the entrance to the court, he would likely have known that he’d been observed, yet despite this he would still go on to murder. And if he was telling the truth about knowing Mary is it not possible that he might have even be known by some in the area thus increasing his risk of being identified.

Isn’t it more likely that Hutchinson was trying to paint himself as a Good Samaritan looking out for a poor unfortunate that he occaisionally gave money to (money that he was unlikely ever to have spare) out of the goodness of his heart. That he let this dodgy AM know that “yes, I’ve got my eye on you mate.” That he stood bravely on guard outside Miller’s Court to keep an eye on her only to leave when he believed that Mary had asked AM to stay the night?

For me everything points to Hutchinson being a fantasist who gave the police a ridiculously detailed description of a non-existent potential ripper. A description that tallied with the common perception of the ripper as a foreigner; a Jew. Or someone from the better levels of society. I think that he did this because he knew that he’d been seen and so he decided to paint himself in the role of Mary’s protector rather than someone who either had a ‘thing’ for her or someone that was hoping for a roof over his head for the night.

HI HS
Good post!

With AM the question is more one of existence and the reliability of Hutchinson’s evidence as that is all that we have. If AM was the Ripper then we have a killer not at all concerned with drawing attention to himself or at least making himself very easily describable and recognisable. A killer quite happy to dress as a semi-toff in one of the most down-at-heel and dangerous areas in London. Yet despite this there was no sighting, or suspected sighting, of him at or near to any of the other murder sites.

I don't have a problem with killers being seen with there victims moments before the crime-especially by strangers. Even killers who are seen by people they know will go on to commit the crime.


I also don't really have a problem with well dressed men in that area at night, although it does raise my eyebrows a bit. Especially when they seem to be a amalgam of previous witness sightings (bag in hand, red hanky, jewish etc).


That being said- a well dressed man was seen in the area around the same time-the bethnal Green botherer that Sarah lewis saw. Now if it wasn't impossible for BGB to be Aman because of the logistics, I would place more credibility with Aman. of course there is a chance that hutch got wind of this suspicious well dressed character and incorporated him into Aman as well.

But I believe Sarah lewis and her story about the BGB and to me he remains an intriguing character.

Hutchinson describes his strange action of stooping down to look into AM’s face. He doesn’t mention Mary telling him to “sod off” because he might be at risk of scaring off her client which there must have been a more than reasonable chance of her doing. And in that poorly lit street, with this fleeting glimpse he even describes AM’s eyelashes. There maybe other examples of this but can anyone name any witness or witnesses in any other crime investigation where under similar circumstances that Sherlock Holmes described the suspects eyelashes?

oddly enough there are even witnesses in the ripper case who describe eyelashes/eyebrows. Best and gardner who say they saw Stride with a man. Something about him having weak eyelashes. I think there are actually others too in the case, but cant remember.

Surely this should lean us very heavily in favour of this being, at the very least, exaggerated and therefore unreliable or, at worst, simply unbelievable? Yes, Abberline felt his testimony was honest. So Hutchinson gave the ‘impression’ of being honest to a senior police officer under tremendous pressure from his superiors and from the public to find the ripper. A public that largely felt that the ripper was likely to be foreign or specifically Jewish (just like the description given by Hutchinson.) How would Abberline have been criticised if he’d have dismissed Hutchinson as unreliable?

Under the circs probably a lot if Abberline dismissed him immediately-until he could verify what Hutch said and or other circs arose that would impinge on his credibility whats Abberline supposed to do-so he simply said after the initial questioning he believed him. big wup.


You must remember Abberline had just come from the inquest where he heard Lewis talk about waiting man (AKA wide awake man) the man waiting and watching the court-"as if waiting for someone to come out"-and lo and behold in he strolls? I would have believed him too-his story (at least about being there) is corroborated.

Isn’t it more likely that Hutchinson was trying to paint himself as a Good Samaritan looking out for a poor unfortunate that he occaisionally gave money to (money that he was unlikely ever to have spare) out of the goodness of his heart. That he let this dodgy AM know that “yes, I’ve got my eye on you mate.” That he stood bravely on guard outside Miller’s Court to keep an eye on her only to leave when he believed that Mary had asked AM to stay the night?

For me everything points to Hutchinson being a fantasist who gave the police a ridiculously detailed description of a non-existent potential ripper. A description that tallied with the common perception of the ripper as a foreigner; a Jew. Or someone from the better levels of society. I think that he did this because he knew that he’d been seen and so he decided to paint himself in the role of Mary’s protector rather than someone who either had a ‘thing’ for her or someone that was hoping for a roof over his head for the night.

[/QUOTE]


totally agree. at very least hutch was an attention seeking liar and made up the story of Aman, although I believe he was there waiting and watching for mary. Im about 50/50 on whether he even spoke with her though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HI HS
Good post!

Hi Abby, thanks


I don't have a problem with killers being seen with there victims moments before the crime-especially by strangers. Even killers who are seen by people they know will go on to commit the crime.

But are there such specific examples? What I mean is that in those circumstances, 4 murders into a series that’s all over the news, someone who is very distinctly dressed is seen accompanying the next victim down a narrow passage that leads to her room. For me the killer would have to have been almost suicidally reckless to have continued.

I also don't really have a problem with well dressed men in that area at night, although it does raise my eyebrows a bit. Especially when they seem to be a amalgam of previous witness sightings (bag in hand, red hanky, jewish etc.

The ‘raising of eyebrows’ is a good way of putting it Abby. I’m not suggesting that a well dressed man couldn’t have been there but I just feel that the killer wouldn’t have wanted to draw attention to himself. This is one of the reasons why I’m not keen on Tumblety as a suspect. I’m not suggesting that it dismissed him as a suspect but it lessens the likelihood for me.


That being said- a well dressed man was seen in the area around the same time-the bethnal Green botherer that Sarah lewis saw. Now if it wasn't impossible for BGB to be Aman because of the logistics, I would place more credibility with Aman. of course there is a chance that hutch got wind of this suspicious well dressed character and incorporated him into Aman as well.

Im a bit vague on the story of the BGB Abby but it does ring a bell. I’ll have to refresh my memory.

But I believe Sarah lewis and her story about the BGB and to me he remains an intriguing character.

oddly enough there are even witnesses in the ripper case who describe eyelashes/eyebrows. Best and gardner who say they saw Stride with a man. Something about him having weak eyelashes. I think there are actually others too in the case, but cant remember.

To be honest Abby as I was typing this point something at the back of my mind was telling me that eyelashes had been mentioned somewhere in the case but I just couldn’t place it. Now I can. I still feel though that it’s a little far fetched to think that Hutchinson could have noticed this detail under the circumstances. It’s not impossible of course though.

Under the circs probably a lot if Abberline dismissed him immediately-until he could verify what Hutch said and or other circs arose that would impinge on his credibility whats Abberline supposed to do-so he simply said after the initial questioning he believed him. big wup.
You must remember Abberline had just come from the inquest where he heard Lewis talk about waiting man (AKA wide awake man) the man waiting and watching the court-"as if waiting for someone to come out"-and lo and behold in he strolls? I would have believed him too-his story (at least about being there) is corroborated.

Accepted. The only points that I was making though was that just because Abberline felt that he was honest doesn’t necessarily mean that he was. And that it’s also possible that under the circumstances he might have been more willing to latch onto a possible suspect.

totally agree. at very least hutch was an attention seeking liar and made up the story of Aman, although I believe he was there waiting and watching for mary. Im about 50/50 on whether he even spoke with her though.

This is one of my doubts. The other victims were apparently chosen at random so why was Hutchinson the ripper so determined that it had to be Mary that night? Why was he willing to undergo the inconvenience of loitering around when he could easily have found another victim.

[/QUOTE]

Im not suggesting certainties here but I just feel that, on balance, neither AM or Hutchinson were the ripper. I tend to think that Hutchinson wanted somewhere to stay for the night and he thought that Mary was an option. He gave up waiting and then felt guilty that he hadn’t done anything that might have helped his ‘friend’ so he made up the AM story to paint himself in a better light.

[Joshua Rogan]

Im a bit vague on the story of the BGB Abby but it does ring a bell. I’ll have to refresh my memory.

The Bethnal Green Butcher?

[Sam Flynn]

The Bethnal Green Butcher?

"Bethnal Green Botherer", I think. The weirdo who spooked Sarah Lewis and her friend in the week before Kelly's death.

[Joshua Rogan]

"Bethnal Green Botherer", I think. The weirdo who spooked Sarah Lewis and her friend in the week before Kelly's death.

You're probably right, Sam. I was just bored and wondering if there were any fans of old-school Genesis in tonight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Bethnal Green Botherer", I think. The weirdo who spooked Sarah Lewis and her friend in the week before Kelly's death.

It sounds like either The Goon Show or The Two Ronnies.

[Ben]

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
The only way a story is discredited is, if it has already been investigated. "Discredited" is a conclusion, not a temporary opinion at half-time.

Precisely, Jon, but surely you understand the distinction between “concluding” that a witness account was bogus and “proving” that it was? I have no idea to what extent Hutchinson was investigated after being discredited, but I see no evidence that he was treated any differently to Emanuel Violenia and Matthew Packer, who were also among the last people to see murder victims alive, who were also discredited, and who also didn’t transform into suspects at any stage thereafter.

The cake’s beginning to taste rather good.

The Star exaggerated the opinion of their contemporary - the Echo, who reported that Hutchinson's story was devalued

No, they didn’t.

You just have a paranoid aversion to the word “discredited” for some reason. “Considerably discounted” was the expression used by the Echo on the 14th, and it means exactly the same thing.

As the article suggests, a dark foreigner, and to quote the article:
"...they are very much more consistent with the description they afterwards received".
Referring to the Hutchinson suspect.

But who described a “dark foreigner” at the Bucks Row or Berner Street crimes? Elizabeth Long stated that the man she saw resembled a foreigner, which must be treated with obvious caution in light her admission that she didn’t see the man’s face.

Fobbing him off" is saying, "I am looking for someone else". This constable made a particular point about the attire being quite different to that of Blotchy

What’s the difference?

The constable didn’t mention “attire” at all, he just fobbed Galloway off by claiming that the man they were hunting looked “different” to Blotchy, all for the purpose of putting him off the scent of the blotchy-resembling character who was “working in concert with the police”. Nothing whatsoever to do with Astrakhan man.

The evening papers simply copied morning papers to save money, telegraph was expensive

But the Echo weren’t “copying” anything. They were reporting on that day’s events; events that transpired after the morning papers went to print. The “later investigations” referred to in the Echo came to light during the day on the 13th, which is why we hear nothing about them in that morning’s papers.

I don’t see how “pots of money” is relevant to anything, but if you had evidence for your “copying” claim, it should be a doddle for you to produce a morning paper mentioning Hutchinson’s “very reduced importance” on the 13th.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I have never suggested, “vigorously” or otherwise, that Hutchinson was “only a timewaster”. I thought I’d made that abundantly clear throughout our discussions, but suffice to say I share your conclusion that Hutchinson was the man in the wideawake seen by Sarah Lewis.

I do recall you disagreeing with others who viewed G.H. as the killer, settling for a less controversial accusation that he was present, but made up most of his story.
Though how you can also agree that Lewis saw G.H. standing opposite Millers Court, yet continue to claim he was not in that position when he saw the handkerchief & heard their exchange, is perplexing to say the least.
The two interpretations are not mutually supportive. It makes for a confused argument.

Your couldn’t be more wrong in your assessment of common lodging houses as ill-suited for the killer’s purposes. On the contrary, they would have served him excellently, as they enabled their inmates to become needles in a haystack, which is presumably why senior detectives continued to investigate them as probable bolt-holes for the killer. Why do you suppose the men who duffed up Thomas Sadler made straight for a lodging house directly after their attack?

What organs were removed from Sadler?

Who described the bothersome man from Bethnal Green Road as “respectably dressed”, and what do you consider so “obviously suspicious” about his behaviour?

Kennedy of course, and corroborated by Sarah Lewis calling him a "Gentleman". The fact he acted "suspicious" was recounted in Lewis's police statement, and specifically described as such in one of the many questions she was asked in court.

No, I don’t think he’s a “reasonable candidate”; I think he’s a lousy one. Or do we imagine the ripper was in the habit of approaching two women, murdering one of them in a nearby alley while the other waits patiently nearby and promises not to do anything inconvenient like running for the nearest policeman?

He only wanted one of them, that's all he needs. Perhaps you credit this killer with too much intellect.

You don’t have a scrap of evidence that Bowyer ever signed a statement to the effect that he had seen a man in the court at 3.00, less still one who “fit the published description”.

You want to talk about 'evidence' now?, this is after you assert your favourite source - the Echo, managed to obtain inside information from the police, without the slightest scrap of said evidence?
And, continue to promote the humorously inaccurate charge of "discredited" thrown out by the Star, in a one-off attempt to grab some limelight ahead of the Echo, again without a shred of evidence whatsoever?

Whereas you’ve never been in the real world if you’re seriously suggesting that witnesses are actively suppressed from revealing critical information because the stupid, ignorant authorities....

I didn't know you had no experience on how a court functions, but you just confirmed it.
A witness is expected to answer the questions put to them, and nothing more. A witness does not offer a running commentary on their last 24 hours leading up to the murder.
I can see your hypothetical opinions on this issue have no value.

If Bowyer had truly seen a man in Miller’s Court at 3.00am on the morning of the Kelly murder, the police and coroner would have elicited the information. Definitely and irrefutably.

The coroner forms his questions to the witness from the statement the witness gave to police. He has this statement in his hands and uses it to question the witness.
The police statement was taken by Abberline, so if Abberline didn't ask him about seeing any 'suspicious' men that morning, then it wouldn't have been in the police statement - and it wasn't.
Bowyer's sole contribution was his discovery of the body.

Provide a direct quote from Bowyer attesting to the presence of anyone in the court at 3.00am, and show me where anyone else described a man resembling Astrakhan. I’m not confident that you will deliver in either case.

I don't need to.
Abberline took his statement down in third-hand, so no direct quotes there either.
If "no direct quote" is the bar set by you, then nothing witnessed by Bowyer is admissible.

But, where are your "direct quotes" from the police to the Echo in providing this hypothetical inside information you so desperately assert was given?

It works both ways.

Funny how you insist on direct quotes when it suits you, but ignore the fact when it doesn't. Lack of consistency in your argument is a sound indication of a flawed argument.

[Robert St Devil]

"Bethnal Green Botherer", I think. The weirdo who spooked Sarah Lewis and her friend in the week before Kelly's death.

I thought it was, Wednesday evening Sara was accosted & Friday morning was the murder. Been wondering why the coroner veered off tangent with his "have you seen anyone strange in the neighborhood lately?" line of thinking with Sara in particular, considering all the loons that were making a sport of Jack the Ripper.

[harry]

Jon,
How does this question and answer apply in court?

Suppose,as sometimes happens,the witness is asked to describe what they attest to.Wouldn't that count as a commentary,as Ben suggests.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
How does this question and answer apply in court?

Suppose,as sometimes happens,the witness is asked to describe what they attest to.Wouldn't that count as a commentary,as Ben suggests.

You're talking about the specific instruction to the witness to, "tell the court in your own words...." Which occasionally is required.
Though that has nothing to do with Bowyer not mentioning every strange man seen in the court, given the profession of his tenants Bowyer would need a list as long as your arm.
At no point did the question arise with Bowyer. It did rise with Sarah Lewis, but only because the strange man was mentioned in her police statement. And, as I said earlier, the coroner takes his queue for questions from that same statement.

The significance of the stranger Bowyer saw around 3:00 in the court was his description. The importance of which only transpired after Hutchinson came forward with a similar(?) suspect description after the inquest.

[Abby Normal]

"Bethnal Green Botherer", I think. The weirdo who spooked Sarah Lewis and her friend in the week before Kelly's death.

Whom she saw again the night of kellys murder i beleive.