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

[Sally]

Jon! How lovely to find a post from you this morning! And there I was thinking you had me on ‘ignore’…

I've been most entertained by your post, quite made my day, it did!

But Sally, our 'wait' was a bit of an anti-climax seeing as how all those points have been debated already.

You were waiting? Really?

And here's me thinking Sally has found something of interest... what a let down

I’m sure the thought never crossed your mind for an instant, Jon. Ah well….

Much like your "most reasonable candidate" for Sarah Lewis, if you recall

Sigh.

As I see Ben has pointed out to you (for which thanks, Ben) theory is based upon what is known at the time. There was absolutely nothing lacking in the premise that the Sarah Lewis of Great Pearl Street was the Dorset Street Witness, considering that she too, was living on Great Pearl Street.

We have since learned otherwise, which is all to the good, as far as I'm concerned. All that ever concerns me, in fact, is establishing the facts.

I do give you credit though, you sold your hypothesis well enough for Garry to buy into it. If I recall Garry described it, "unquestionably correct", good job we did not take that interpretation too seriously, hey

Ben of course bought into it too if I am not mistaken, but that is no surprise.

Oh do desist, Jon. Your penchant for taking sideways swipes at posters with whom you disagree is childish and rather petty. Nobody cares about your insignificant disputes except you.

So now you have turned this highly tuned perceptive gift of yours on Joseph Isaacs...

But what have you turned up?

Isaacs again? Really? (Yawn).

Well I’m not telling you, since all you do is insult me.

What we do have is documented proof Isaacs was in prison 'from' the 12th Nov.

#

On remand. Do you know what that means? He was convicted on 12th November – not arrested. You have no idea when he was arrested – don’t pretend you do.

What we also have is one 'referenced' news article by Lloyds placing Isaacs in his room on the 9th, via Mary Cusins, and one 'unreferenced' news article suggesting he was in prison.

Given what we 'do have', it is not unreasonable to expect any nay-sayers to provide an equal amount of proof in support of their claim that he was in prison on the 9th.

Ok. I’ll see what I can do. You’ll have to wait until after Christmas though. I’ve got better things to do for the next few weeks.

This is what I was anticipating from you (sigh!)

And you have given me what I was expecting from you.

I think we’ll leave it there for now. I don’t want to spoil the fun (well, mine, at least).

By the way, just in case it turns out that you are wrong, I've made a note of your last post to me - just so we can re-visit it later on. I'm sure one of us will enjoy that.

Now, wasn't this thread about Hutchinson? Let's get back to him.

[Ben]

You seem to have a deeply unhealthy obsession with delving into the distant archives in order to find something, anything, however absurdly tenuous, that might undermine the credibility of one of your perceived "opponents", but pursuing small-minded and petty vendettas just isn't Chrismasy, and nor is it a productive expenditure of your time. And you don't succeed here at all. A competent investigator goes with the best evidence available until something better comes along to steer that investigator in a different direction. As such, the reasons for supporting that particular identification of Sarah Lewis as the most likely one were sound, according to the best evidence at the time, and likewise, your reasons for dismissing that particular candidate are no less stinky now than they were then.

What we also have is one 'referenced' news article by Lloyds placing Isaacs in his room on the 9th, via Mary Cusins, and one 'unreferenced' news article suggesting he was in prison.

Your distinction is a meaningless and inaccurate one. If there is a difference between the two reports, it is because the former was based on fag-ends picked up from a nosy neighbour who wanted a thieving Jew out of the equation, whereas the latter was based on investigations conducted by the newspaper themselves, and they were a perfectly reputable newspaper to boot. You're also not paying any attention at all to the chronology of events. You must understand that if an article (b) appears considerably later than - and in apparent conflict with - article (a), it often simply means that later investigations have cleared up some of the misunderstandings of article (a) resulting in article (b). This is evidently what happened is Isaacs' case, which is why the very last we hear of him was on 23rd December, when it was reported that he had a prison alibi for the Kelly murder, neatly and perfectly explaining the lack of references to him thereafter.

Case closed according to all concerned in 1888.

Case pointlessly and senselessly revived by you in 2013.

Whether this was the result of speculation by the press, or that the police did truly believe Isaacs was the attacker of Annie Farmer, it is quite easy to see how confusion could result in Lloyds making an erroneous claim

It's not a confusion, and it's not an erroneous claim.

The confusion and erroneous claims all stem from you and your bizarre inability to fathom that a career thief was arrested and imprisoned twice for two instances of theft. He was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder for stealing a coat, whereas later, he was arrested and sentenced to hard labour for stealing a watch. These were two separate punishments for two separate offences, not to be confused with each other. Out of the window, then, must be hurled any justification for arguing "confusion" on the part of Lloyds Weekly.

Strange, isn't it that Isaacs never thought to provide this rock-solid alibi to Abberline, "Hey Guv, I was nicked" (as per Lloyds).

I'm sure that's precisely what he said.

But he was still wanted in connection with the watch theft, remember? He wasn't taken into custody solely on the basis of ripper suspicions. I'm quite sure it took a very short time indeed for Isaacs to be absolved of suspicion in the latter crimes, courtesy of his prison alibi, but his arrest for stealing a gold watch still warranted further investigation and detention, which is clearly what happened, and that is why he was held for longer. Nothing to do with any quickly-demolished suspicion that he was the ripper of Kelly's murderer. It also took longer for the press to be appraised of the latest details.

[Wickerman]

Just wait until you see what I have to say about Isaacs..

Is then followed by...

Except, of course, that there exists (at least) a contemporary newspaper report which puts him in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. There have been various attempts to discount this evidence via the suggestion that Lloyds was confusing the Kelly murder with the Annie Farmer attack - but that isn't a very satisfying premise, really. The short article in Lloyds is highly specific - Isaacs was in prison for stealing a coat. Unless we're willing to entertain the idea that Lloyds not only confused the victims but the spoils of Isaacs' thievery as well;...

And...

Well, that's what Mary Cousins said, at least. But as I've said before, whether Lloyds was correct (and we may get proof of that yet) or not, he was evidentally somewhere else on the night of Kelly's death which enabled him to produce an ironclad alibi. Almost certainly, on that basis alone, he was not Astrakhan...

But Sally, our 'wait' was a bit of an anti-climax seeing as how all those points have been debated already.
And here's me thinking Sally has found something of interest... what a let down

Much like your "most reasonable candidate" for Sarah Lewis, if you recall

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=176630&postcount=333

I do give you credit though, you sold your hypothesis well enough for Garry to buy into it. If I recall Garry described it, "unquestionably correct", good job we did not take that interpretation too seriously, hey?
Ben of course bought into it too if I am not mistaken, but that is no surprise.

So now you have turned this highly tuned perceptive gift of yours on Joseph Isaacs...
But what have you turned up?



What we do have is documented proof Isaacs was in prison 'from' the 12th Nov.
What we also have is one 'referenced' news article by Lloyds placing Isaacs in his room on the 9th, via Mary Cusins, and one 'unreferenced' news article suggesting he was in prison.
Given what we 'do have', it is not unreasonable to expect any nay-sayers to provide an equal amount of proof in support of their claim that he was in prison on the 9th.
This is what I was anticipating from you (sigh!)

We also have the press sharing this theory with the reader:

The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields. Exhaustive inquiries were made, but as far as can be ascertained the man could in no way be connected with that outrage.

Whether this was the result of speculation by the press, or that the police did truly believe Isaacs was the attacker of Annie Farmer, it is quite easy to see how confusion could result in Lloyds making an erroneous claim

Wouldn't it have been so simple for Lloyds to have referenced Scotland Yard, or the Met. if (IF) that article had truly been the result of legitimate research on behalf of Lloyd?

Instead, they procure some half confused and partly inaccurate account which, unlike the Cusins account, was not repeated by anyone. This is understandable as the press repeated the Cusins account because it was true, but perhaps no-one repeated the 'in prison' account because they knew this was a mistake?

It also appears that Isaacs was detained from about Dec 7th - Dec 15th, or thereabouts, in order for them to investigate his whereabouts on the night of the Kelly murder.

Strange, isn't it that Isaacs never thought to provide this rock-solid alibi to Abberline, "Hey Guv, I was nicked" (as per Lloyds). A quick telegraph to the jail in question would have resolved the issue, so apparently this didn't happen. They took about a week to establish his whereabouts. So clearly whatever his alibi was, something so simple as being in prison was not the one.
Apparently, it did not take the police any time at all (24 hrs?) to clear him of culpability in the Farmer case, why? - obviously Isaacs told them "because I was nicked". Such a claim is easy to confirm.

So, if the police could clear him of the Farmer charge so quickly, then why not for the Kelly charge, assuming the alibi's were the same?

Doesn't add up, does it

[Ben]

In such situations it is often necessary to bring you back to reality, that regardless how many 'also-rans' may agree with this or that comment made by your good self. The movers & shakers of Ripperological studies have not bought what you are selling.

That's just about the most arrogant, haugty, offensive remark I've ever heard on a Hutchinson thread, and that's saying something. How dare you dismiss perfectly decent and thoroughly well-informed contributors as "also-rans" just because they happen to agree with my views. At least I have some adherents to my views, unlike you. As flattered as I am that you've conferred such great importance upon my contributions, "The movers and shakers of Ripperological studies" (about the wankiest phrase I've heard for a long time) are not hanging on to my every word, and nor are they continually monitoring the painful, repetitive spew that often passes for "debate" on Hutchinson threads. Nor, for the most part, do they even contribute to message board discussions.

Hence, the idea of the ripperological elite forming a chorus of disagreement with me is hilarious - truly truly hilarious, and rather flattering to think I can command such attention - but wrong.

Messrs. Begg, Fido, Sugden and Rumbelow (to name a few at random) would no doubt qualify as "movers and shakers", but I'd venture a guess that half of them don't even know who I am, let alone what I'm "selling". Which is nothing, incidentally. Hutchinson's discrediting is a reality, and thus of no interest to me to sell. That doesn't mean I don't consider it necessary to shout down the fussy, obstreperous prostestations to the contrary whenever I see them. At the moment, I've having fun with yours.

I have, in the past, disagreed with published authors over my thoughts on Hutchinson, but then some of those authors have their own suspect preferences which enjoy less popular support than Hutchinson as a suspect. Not that they're even "my" thoughts, strictly speaking. Hutchinson has been considered suspicious long before I've ever heard of him, and he was discredited in mid-November 1888.

If you're eager to recruit the bigger boys to have a go at me, why don't you drop them a PM and then we can have some real fun? All it tells me is that you recognise what a poor job you're doing of debating this issue with me, and desperately need the "help" of the "movers and shakers". But nobody's up for it. Only you are, and that's because it is necessary for you to battle the issue of Hutchinson with me in order to sustain your thoroughly controversial views on the Kelly murder.

And, until that day dawns, I'm afraid you are still nearer the fringe than the top of the mountain

Which puts you where exactly? Mate, If I'm on the "fringe" with Hutchinson, then you're in some weird, weird galaxy, far, far away with your "Isaacstrakhan", your "Mrs. Kennedy" and your "Daily News".

Thats what you are talking about, witnesses coming forward late, by hours, by days, by weeks, or in some cases never, but being hunted down by police.

Don't tell me what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about witnesses who live in the very location of their alleged eyewitness observation, rendering impossible any consideration that they "missed" news of the victims's death, and who only come forward after the public inquest closed. Unless you can produce evidence for other innocent, non-lying people doing that, you are wasting your time reminding me of the irrelevant detail that sometimes witnesses come forward late.

All witnesses make claims Ben, and because Kennedy was interviewed by police, mentioned in separate accounts across different press releases, we can treat her account with the same trust as we do any other witness.

You still have absolutely no idea how the issue of provenance affects our treatment of witness accounts, do you? So before breathing another sigh of relief that you have no professional involvement in law enforcement, it is necessary to educate you once again. If we are faced with one witness (a) who we know for certain gave both a police account and inquest evidence versus another witnesses (b) whose name only appeared in the press, without any evidence - beyond that witness' say so - that they ever had any contact with the police, then logic and overwhelming common sense obliges us to give greater credence to (a) and virtually none at all to (b).

There is no evidence that Kennedy was ever interviewed by the police. She only claimed she was.

Do you not understand the difference?

What is obvious Ben is that these details irk you so much that you try desperately to make excuses up in your own mind, once again without anything so vulgar as a fact to support your C-l-a-i-m.

Irks me? No. The only thing that irks me is annoying repetition. The only person constantly bringing up Kennedy and attempting to revive her as a truthful and important witness is you. Always you, and only you. She was laughed off the stage in 1888 when she was revealed to have been a plagiariser of Lewis' account - and in that respect, I have the support of Philip Sugden, one of your "movers and shakers" - and she was was discarded before the inquest, her antics having been exposed.

Ok, so now the Star mentioned the parrotters claiming to hear the cry of 'murder', but published Prater & Kennedy as original source material. But now you say they were wrong?

Either digest what I'm saying properly or ask nicely for clarification. If you're incapable of doing either of those things, don't post in future. The Star became aware that the account in question was being parrotted by "half a dozen" women. However, without knowing the original source, they were only aware of the reality that several women were repeating the same story. This issue was clarified only when Sarah Lewis made herself known to the public at the inquest. Prior to that, she had honoured her agreement not to discuss her experiences with the press, neatly accounting for the fact that the Star were oblivious to her existence, despite her being the original genuine source for the story being parrotted.

because you still refuse to accept that two women could be headed for the same address, 30 minutes apart. And, that these two women knew each other well enough to have spent Wednesday evening together, hence the similar story.

The idea that these were two separate, genuine women whose accounts were unbelievably similar is nightmarishly implausible for the obvious reason that they could not have failed to encounter each other in the same tiny bedroom, no. 2, which was the same size as Kelly's! "Hey Sarah, I've just walked here in the small hours, in the pissing rain, passing a scary man who accosted me on Wednesday, and now here I am at the Keylers. What - you as well? Snap! What are the odds!?"

Just...no.

Sarah Lewis vanished from sight just as surely as Mrs Kennedy.

Kennedy disappeared before the inquest. Had she been taken seriously, and had she really claimed to have seen Kelly at 3.00am, she would certainly have appeared there. Lewis was an inquest witness.

[Sally]

Hi Mike,

Quite possibly an interesting contender for Hutch's Astrakan Man...

Except, of course, that there exists (at least) a contemporary newspaper report which puts him in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. There have been various attempts to discount this evidence via the suggestion that Lloyds was confusing the Kelly murder with the Annie Farmer attack - but that isn't a very satisfying premise, really. The short article in Lloyds is highly specific - Isaacs was in prison for stealing a coat. Unless we're willing to entertain the idea that Lloyds not only confused the victims but the spoils of Isaacs' thievery as well; it's a bit of a spanner in the works for the 'Isaacstrakhan' (thanks for that, Ben!) theory.

and the beauty of him is that we know he moved into digs a short walk from Marys place earlier in the week and disappeared he night of Marys murder...leaving I believe a violin bow among other things behind in his room.

Well, that's what Mary Cousins said, at least. But as I've said before, whether Lloyds was correct (and we may get proof of that yet) or not, he was evidentally somewhere else on the night of Kelly's death which enabled him to produce an ironclad alibi. Almost certainly, on that basis alone, he was not Astrakhan.

The "Joe" Mary referred to may have been assumed to be Joe Flemming by those who she told, and many others since then,....but it may have been a different Joe. And there was an "Issacs" mentioned at Berner Street, who most assume was Issac Kozebrodski, but close study reveals that Issac K stated he was sent out alone for help within 1 hour of the murder....so he wasnt the "Issac[s]" that many assume left with Diemshitz.

Tenuous, but interesting.

What fascinates me is the way in which an entire mythology can develop around a man about whom we currently know very little:

So far, Isaacs has been touted as Astrakhan Man; possibly the last person to see Mary Kelly alive; the 'Other Joe', who was reported to ill-treat Mary Kelly (and let us not forget here the claim made by Corneliue Oake that Isaacs had threatened violence against every woman over the age of seventeen); the 'Isaac' of Berner Street; and even Joseph Lis; in which case he emigrated and started a cigar business in between his many crimes.

I doubt he merits such rampant speculation.

[Wickerman]

You've referred to long-buried exchanges from years ago that I've had with other members once too often, and I think it's about time you stopped.

I have noticed Ben, that on occasion you tend to run away with the idea that you have a notable following, and you often choose your words carefully as if to present your view as a majority view.

In such situations it is often necessary to bring you back to reality, that regardless how many 'also-rans' may agree with this or that comment made by your good self. The movers & shakers of Ripperological studies have not bought what you are selling.
And, until that day dawns, I'm afraid you are still nearer the fringe than the top of the mountain.

I'm not talking about late witnesses coming forward. I'm talking about witnesses who wait a considerable degree of time and only come forward as soon as the opportunity to be grilled in a public arena had passed. You claimed there are examples of this happening, so I'm all ears.

Thats what you are talking about, witnesses coming forward late, by hours, by days, by weeks, or in some cases never, but being hunted down by police.
Its a Rose by any other name Ben, no matter what colour you choose to claim it is, it is still only a Rose.

That is what Mrs. Kennedy C-L-A-I-M-E-D.

That does not make it true, which is fortunate, because it isn't.

All witnesses make claims Ben, and because Kennedy was interviewed by police, mentioned in separate accounts across different press releases, we can treat her account with the same trust as we do any other witness.

The above is merely what she told reporters in the immediate aftermath of Kelly's murder,

You're speculating again Ben!

...shortly before she was exposed as a plagiariser of Sarah Lewis' evidence and booted off the scene, leaving only the original, genuine witness to provide a police statement and inquest evidence.

She was never exposed by anyone, another speculation on your part.

It's very obvious that the "being detained in the court" was simply another detail she picked up from Lewis in one of the lodging houses where gossip ran rampant.

What is obvious Ben is that these details irk you so much that you try desperately to make excuses up in your own mind, once again without anything so vulgar as a fact to support your C-l-a-i-m.

They had identified the phenomenon of "parrotting". What they had yet to establish was who was responsible.

Oh, I caused Ben to change his story!
Ok, so now the Star mentioned the parrotters claiming to hear the cry of 'murder', but published Prater & Kennedy as original source material. But now you say they were wrong?
Why?, because you still refuse to accept that two women could be headed for the same address, 30 minutes apart. And, that these two women knew each other well enough to have spent Wednesday evening together, hence the similar story.
And now you add to this your C-l-a-i-m, that in your opinion, Mrs Kennedy was not trapped in Millers Court.

Contrary to everything that is written.

Her evidence continued to be considered valuable,....

Never mind deflecting your initial point, Sarah Lewis vanished from sight just as surely as Mrs Kennedy. So, the fact Kennedy was not heard from again has no bearing on the viability of her statement.

[Michael W Richards]

Oh, that was nothing.

Just wait until you see what I have to say about Isaacs..

Quite possibly an interesting contender for Hutch's Astrakan Man...and the beauty of him is that we know he moved into digs a short walk from Marys place earlier in the week and disappeared he night of Marys murder...leaving I believe a violin bow among other things behind in his room.

The "Joe" Mary referred to may have been assumed to be Joe Flemming by those who she told, and many others since then,....but it may have been a different Joe. And there was an "Issacs" mentioned at Berner Street, who most assume was Issac Kozebrodski, but close study reveals that Issac K stated he was sent out alone for help within 1 hour of the murder....so he wasnt the "Issac[s]" that many assume left with Diemshitz.

Tenuous, but interesting.

Cheers

[The Good Michael]

why doesn't all that show up in the family history. What does show up is that he was paid for his information.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
I would say that if Hutchinson's tale was fabricated, it was for self preservation, and not to either profit from it , or to protect anyone, but himself.
Lets put it all into prospective.
If the meeting between Hutchinson, and Mary. took place as stated, and there was no well dressed man nearby, it is quite conceivable that it was he that solicited Kelly, even without cash upfront, she may have owed him a debt, after all it was his own admission that he helped her out with a shilling or two on previous occasions.
He may simply have accompanied Kelly back to Dorset street, she allowing him back to the shelter of her room , until he could return to his lodgings at daybreak.
He may have given her a kiss, she may have asked him for his handkerchief, a red one[ no wonder how he could describe it as red], they may have laughed, and stood talking opposite the passage before going to her room.
It could have been simply a case of Hutchinson spending a few hours in her room , and leaving without his handkerchief.
Did not a court resident hear a man leave the court around 6,15 am which would be ideal for the Victoria home opening its doors.?
But if he was not a killer, it means that when he left the room at daybreak, she was alive, yet to Hutchinson's horror, the medical time of death was when he was still in her room.
What if he was seen?
What if the handkerchief was traced to him , he had not got his , maybe he always had one on display ?
So why come forward with his statement?
He was paranoid that he was seen with Mary , maybe entering the court, so he invented a person dressed like the bogey man, carrying a long cloth type parcel, and he supplemented his own words onto the stranger, complete with the handkerchief exchange.
He even supplemented the man standing opposite the court [ Lewis's man] as himself...it could have been that person that sparked off his fears. he possibly witnessed him with Mary Kelly., before they went down the passage.
He could never admit ,along with Mr Blotchy. or A man [ if he existed] that he was in the room during the night, and came forward with the famous A man.
Speculation friends..but would give us all another viewpoint.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Yep, to all Sally said.

Oh, that was nothing.

Just wait until you see what I have to say about Isaacs..

[Sally]

Hi Sally,Mr Hutchinson was almost certainly up to no good himself by hanging round that area he was running the risk of being mugged or worse.He must have come forward because he thought he had been seen by someone in the area or purely to make some money from the press .The police at the time must have thought him a strange witness so they must have investigated him properly and come to the conclusion he was a time waster.The whole thing for me though is why did he hang round for nearly an hour after Kelly took punter back to her room very strange behaviour.

Hi Pink - yes, both plausible explanations for his coming forward. The second is self-explanatory, requiring no further elaboration - and indeed, the possibility that Hutchinson was 'merely a publicity-seeking time-waster is not untenable in my view.

The first - that he thought he'd been seen by somebody - seems rather likely considering that he came forward almost immediately the inquest was finished - and this has been covered many, many times on Casebook.

It is true to say that his late appearance, and the timing of that appearance was thought dubious by some at the time - contemporary press reports are not without criticism in that respect.

Another possibility is that his appearance, and story, were simply fabricated to put the spotlight on the 'well-dressed foreigner' suspect type - and thus away from Kelly's midnight drinking companion.

Perhaps his non-attendance at the inquest was due to his not actually being 'George Hutchinson' at all; but A.N.Other who might well have been recognised at that inquest.

Or perhaps he was the killer after all.

Whatever the case, it is difficult (for me, at least) to accept Hutchinson's tale at face value. Even if he only made up a little bit of what he said, his account just doesn't quite add up.

[Ben]

Yep, to all Sally said.

Sometimes when one tells the truth precisely, and they are met with distrust, they tend to elaborate , in order to convince their accusers.

I wouldn't have thought so, Richard.

I'd envisage the opposite reaction - clamming up and being very brief and guarded with their answers the moment a whiff of "distrust" is detected, although I see little indication that Abberline put Hutchinson on the immediate defensive like that. Unless the former had a particularly poor interrogation technique, he would have sought to put Hutchinson at ease at the outset.

It does not warrant a '' Guilty'' of lying conviction

In the absence of proof either way, no, it wouldn't.

But that doesn't mean the police could not have maintained suspicions that Hutchinson lied, and that appears to have been the case.

All the best,
Ben

[pinkmoon]

And yet according to him, Pink, he saw virtually nobody at all during his loiter on Dorset Street - an account oddly at odds with that of Mrs Lewis, who recounted seeing a number of people, including, apparantly, him.

There exists contemporary documentary evidence that Dorset Street was both overcrowded and extremely unpleasant - even by contemporary standards - yet on that night, at that time, it contained (according to Hutchinson at least) only himself, a soon to be dead prostitute, who - as chance would have it, was a friend of his; and a somewhat theatrical suspect who - as chance would have it again - appeared strikingly similar to a series of 'well-dressed' men reported in suspicious circumstances in the press.

It seems almost as if the stage was set.

Did George (if that was even his name) lie? Almost certainly, about some things at least. At the very least, it is difficult to accept that his highly detailed account could have been entirely accurate in terms of what he said he heard and saw in poor weather and very dim, possibly obscured by rain, lighting conditions.

The questions are of course as to the extent of his fabrication and motives for said porky-pies.

Possibilities are legion. One effect that his sudden emergence after the inquest had was to take the spotlight of Blotchy. Whether the two occurrences have a causal or casual relationship is anyone's guess.

Hi Sally,Mr Hutchinson was almost certainly up to no good himself by hanging round that area he was running the risk of being mugged or worse.He must have come forward because he thought he had been seen by someone in the area or purely to make some money from the press .The police at the time must have thought him a strange witness so they must have investigated him properly and come to the conclusion he was a time waster.The whole thing for me though is why did he hang round for nearly an hour after Kelly took punter back to her room very strange behaviour.

[Sally]

And yet according to him, Pink, he saw virtually nobody at all during his loiter on Dorset Street - an account oddly at odds with that of Mrs Lewis, who recounted seeing a number of people, including, apparantly, him.

There exists contemporary documentary evidence that Dorset Street was both overcrowded and extremely unpleasant - even by contemporary standards - yet on that night, at that time, it contained (according to Hutchinson at least) only himself, a soon to be dead prostitute, who - as chance would have it, was a friend of his; and a somewhat theatrical suspect who - as chance would have it again - appeared strikingly similar to a series of 'well-dressed' men reported in suspicious circumstances in the press.

It seems almost as if the stage was set.

Did George (if that was even his name) lie? Almost certainly, about some things at least. At the very least, it is difficult to accept that his highly detailed account could have been entirely accurate in terms of what he said he heard and saw in poor weather and very dim, possibly obscured by rain, lighting conditions.

The questions are of course as to the extent of his fabrication and motives for said porky-pies.

Possibilities are legion. One effect that his sudden emergence after the inquest had was to take the spotlight of Blotchy. Whether the two occurrences have a causal or casual relationship is anyone's guess.

[pinkmoon]

Hi,
Anything is possible Pink moon.
But Dorset street had such a reputation, that the police patrolled allegedly in pairs, that being the case unless Hutchinson was a rough handful , its doubtful that he was much of a deterrent against potential muggers.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,Dorset street was a truly awfull place Mr Hutchinson must have felt very safe and very confident nothing was going to happen to him to hang round so long .