Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are the reports in the contempory newpapers sufficient to discredit Hutchinson?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by DVV View Post
    I simply suggest that Hutch's interview led the police to consider him a crank witness - as Tom said.
    David,

    I believe that his testimony was checked out and that it was a futile effort. I also believe we don't know either way and such a mistake-ridden article doesn't help matters.

    Cheers,

    Mike
    huh?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
      Hi Obs,

      Mrs. Long did not see the man's face and never claimed to be an 'identifying' witness' the way Schwartz and Hutchinson did. Neither did Lawende, and yet he's the sole witness used for identification. I'd say the evidence is pretty strong that the police came to see Hutch as a crank witness, although I couldn't tell you why.

      Yours truly,

      Tom Wescott
      The timing of his sighting could be one reason. Assuming Astrakhan existed ive never thought of him as Kelly's killer. It would require him to have been with Kelly for a number of hours IF we take 4 am as her time of death.

      There's a difference between the importance police attribute to witnesses in the immediate aftermath of a murder, and months later when the investigation is not under so much public and press pressure.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
        David,

        I believe that his testimony was checked out and that it was a futile effort. I also believe we don't know either way and such a mistake-ridden article doesn't help matters.

        Cheers,

        Mike
        On the contrary, it helps, Mike.

        The police believed Hutch, and tried to find the suspect with his assistance.
        Then Hutch talked to the press, ruining thus the police efforts. Not to mention his incredible Sunday sighting and the changes in the suspect's features.

        What else could have discredited Hutch ?

        Amitiés,
        David

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jason_c View Post
          There's a difference between the importance police attribute to witnesses in the immediate aftermath of a murder, and months later when the investigation is not under so much public and press pressure.
          Hi Jason,

          the problem with Hutch is that he seems to have been discredited within a few days - 2 or 3.
          Faster than Packer.

          Amitiés,
          David

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DVV View Post
            Then Hutch talked to the press, ruining thus the police efforts. Not to mention his incredible Sunday sighting and the changes in the suspect's features.

            What else could have discredited Hutch ?
            But how do you know this is a direct quote from Hutch and not just something pulled together? If it came from Hutch, and he got so many things wrong, we would certainly be able to dismiss him from suspicion of murder. There's no way the police would have seen so many discrepancies and have let him just go on his way.

            Cheers,

            Mike
            huh?

            Comment


            • #21
              But how do you know this is a direct quote from Hutch and not just something pulled together?
              At least, the Sunday sighting must come from Hutch.

              There's no way the police would have seen so many discrepancies and have let him just go on his way.
              Not so sure, if they came to consider him a crank.

              Some people have strange thoughts.
              Clint Eastwood believe the Boks have really won the Cup in 1995.

              Amitiés,
              David

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi All,

                Here's Mister Astrakhan in all his various guises—

                Click image for larger version

Name:	GH DIFFERENCES.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	118.2 KB
ID:	658429

                The Times, 13th November 1888—

                The police yesterday evening received an important piece of information [see GH police statement, column 1].

                This description [see column 2], which confirms that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police.

                The Times, 14th November 1888—

                "The description of the murderer given by Hutchinson [see column 3] agrees in every particular with that already furnished by the police and published yesterday morning [compare with column 2]."

                Hutchinson's Tuesday description was being used as confirmation of the unattributed Monday description, making it sound like two witnesses had seen Mister Astrakhan, and the original Monday description had been "furnished by the police" who amongst other amendments removed the Jewish reference.

                Meanwhile, the US press was reporting a completely different series of events.

                Evening Star [Washington DC], 14th November 1888—

                Important Testimony of a Groom at the Inquest in London Yesterday.

                "At the inquest on the last victim of the murderer yesterday George Hutchinson, a groom, who had known the victim for some years and saw her with a male companion shortly before 2 o'clock on the morning of the murder, testified that he saw a well-dressed man, with a Semitic cast of countenance, accost the woman . . ."

                Note the return of the originally removed Jewish reference.

                . . . " The witness who testified yesterday to having seen the woman enter the house with a man with a blotched face was evidently mistaken as to the night, as his description of her companion is totally unlike that of Hutchinson's in every particular.

                Decatur Daily Republican, 15th November 1888—

                "The witness who testified Monday to having seen the woman enter the house with a man with a blotched face was evidently mistaken as to the night, as his description of her companion is totally unlike that of Hutchinson's in every particular.

                "London, Nov. 14.
The police consider they are on the track of the Whitechapel murderer. Two witnesses at the inquest yesterday described the appearance of the man seen going into the house with the Kelly woman shortly before the killing, the descriptions being almost identical."

                By now you should be smelling a giant rat.

                Regards,

                Simon

                Comment


                • #23
                  Simon,

                  Looks like the Foreign Office Press Department again... oh dear, what silly billy's.

                  Seriously, I agree.

                  Like I have always said, and said constantly, and no doubt will have it thrown back at me again in numerous different ways... Something is totally WRONG with this from start to finish. Sometimes the Press are bang on/can't trust the press/ The Times is best/The Times is wrong...
                  Has anyone seen the colour of the rat? Rattus Norvegicus, in Blue.
                  And the sting in the tail is that lovely, obviously "wrong" comment from the...

                  Evening Star [Washington DC], 14th November 1888—

                  Important Testimony of a Groom at the Inquest in London Yesterday.

                  "At the inquest on the last victim of the murderer yesterday George Hutchinson, a groom, who had known the victim for some years and saw her with a male companion shortly before 2 o'clock on the morning of the murder, testified that he saw a well-dressed man, with a Semitic cast of countenance, accost the woman . . ."

                  Nah, must be wrong....right? 'Cos we all know Hutch gave his evidence to the Police at 6 in the evening AFTER the inquest... STRAIGHT after the inquest..... wonderful timing... beautiful plumage... The Norvegicus Blue prefers kipping on its back.

                  Umm, anyone for disinformation?

                  best wishes

                  Phil
                  Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                  Justice for the 96 = achieved
                  Accountability? ....

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Monty,

                    I know Lawende saw the man's face. My post was poorly worded, I merely met like Long he wouldn't be able to identify him again. I think it says something about what the police thought of Schwartz and Hutchinson that they put more faith in Lawende.

                    Simon,

                    Good stuff. You've obviously put a lot of work into Hutch.

                    Yours truly,

                    Tom Wescott

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hello Simon!

                      A nice comparison indeed, thank you!

                      Just wondering, that what made the cloth precisely American?!

                      All the best
                      Jukka
                      "When I know all about everything, I am old. And it's a very, very long way to go!"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                        I think it says something about what the police thought of Schwartz and Hutchinson that they put more faith in Lawende.

                        Tom Wescott
                        They obviously put more faith in Lawende, but I don't think the police considered Schwartz and Hutch as examples of the same category.
                        This can be the conclusion of a modern researcher (right or wrong, it's not the point), but perhaps not that of the 1888 investigation.

                        Amitiés,
                        David

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          What do you mean, DVV, each man claimed to have seen a suspicious man in the company of a Ripper victim (as they saw it). The odd man out is Lawende, who stated he wouldn't know him again. Yet, of these men, he's the one called 'the only one who saw the Ripper', and is the only one we've seen used as an identifying witness later on.

                          Yours truly,

                          Tom Wescott

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I mean the two suspects are too different for Schwartz and Hutch to be put within the same category.

                            BSM seems real. A rough and half drunk East-Ender...something like that.
                            Astrakhan Man comes from outer space.

                            Amitiés,
                            David

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I understood that the reason George Hutchinson"s statement was discredited was simply because the description he gave to the police at the police station became useless as soon as Hutchinson gave his interview to the press a few days later.The police had only circulated it to police stations but when the press got hold of it it became useless to them as they believed ,if Hutchinson"s man was really the ripper he would have disguised his appearance on seeing himself "described".
                              Best

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                                I understood that the reason George Hutchinson"s statement was discredited was simply because the description he gave to the police at the police station became useless as soon as Hutchinson gave his interview to the press a few days later.
                                It's worse than that.
                                The search became useless.

                                Amitiés,
                                David

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X