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

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson's story could have been made up from reading the news.

Which news?

He omitted Lewis who had a reason to pass a man standing outside while she was going into the court.

Women, in the 19th century could be anywhere & everywhere, but unless there was some specific reason to draw attention to a woman, they generally blended into the background.
Happily, times have changed, but to understand why these apparent anomalies existed we have to avoid looking at these statements with 21st century social attitudes.

It is doubtful he is even the person she described seeing.

It isn't doubtful, but it is not certain.

He omits loads of details and yet can remember this guy down to quantum level, lol.

If you notice the detailed description given by Hutchinson is quite separate from the account he provided to Sgt Badham.
It does not form part of the same statement, it is appended afterwards.

That is an indication that Hutchinson was specifically questioned on the point, likely by Badham, after he gave his voluntary statement.

The police form provided to compile a suspect description is very detailed, it begins with the obvious, like; Name, Age, Profession, but goes into fine detail like, Hair, Eyebrows, Eyes, Nose, Lips, Chin, Ears, etc.

It looks to me like Hutchinson was questioned by Badham on these specific points as he reads down the list, but because we are not aware that a form is being used it leaves the modern reader with the impression that Hutchinson is pulling this all out of a hat.

The detail is not entirely credited to Hutchinson, but also to the professionalism of Sgt Badham.

The man outside is Blotchy waiting to use the window trick to go back in to kill MJK after checking things out.

Did he go home to change his hat & clothes, then come back?

[Wickerman]

Hi,

I still dont understand (even with Ben's juvenile bullying tactics) why people dont beieve in Hurchinson's statement. It was vouched by Abberline and even Dew regarded it as true. There is no reason to believe that it was made up or that the Police believed it was made up ( apart from the one obscure press "add" that Ben relies on.

Best wishes.

Exactly, there is no reason.
All there is, is a desire to create spurious suspicion where none existed.

[Ben]

Women, in the 19th century could be anywhere & everywhere, but unless there was some specific reason to draw attention to a woman, they generally blended into the background.

An interesting point, Jon, and one I admittedly hadn't considered.

The police form provided to compile a suspect description is very detailed, it begins with the obvious, like; Name, Age, Profession, but goes into fine detail like, Hair, Eyebrows, Eyes, Nose, Lips, Chin, Ears, etc.

Ah, not quite such a good point.

There is no way Hutchinson responded to a "list" provided by Badham, unless you're seriously suggesting that, in addition to height, weight etc, Badham had a form for witnesses to fill in which included "shirt collar material?", "eyelash colour?", "tie-pin design?", and other sillinesses. Unless you think that happened, it's quite clear that Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was offered more as a narrative.

Did he go home to change his hat & clothes, then come back?

Wouldn't have needed to.

There is no obvious difference in the clothing and headgear worn by Wideawake and Blotchy - at least as far as we're aware.

All there is, is a desire to create spurious suspicion where none existed.

Plenty of people are suspicious, so regardless of your unfounded insistence that the suspicion is motivated by "desire", it exists (just as it existed in 1888), it is widespread, and it certainly isn't going away.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Just in case anyone wondered what "Hatchett"'s unprovoked random attack on me was all about, I stepped in a few years ago when he harassed another Casebook member, and it seems he's borne a grudge ever since. That's why he's pretending to have an opinion on Hutchinson, and repeating the same generalized nonsense that has been refuted in depth on multiple threads.

[Wickerman]

There is no way Hutchinson responded to a "list" provided by Badham, unless you're seriously suggesting that, in addition to height, weight etc, Badham had a form for witnesses to fill in which included "shirt collar material?", "eyelash colour?", "tie-pin design?", and other sillinesses. Unless you think that happened, it's quite clear that Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was offered more as a narrative.

This is part of the form, judge for yourself.

Wouldn't have needed to.

There is no obvious difference in the clothing and headgear worn by Wideawake and Blotchy - at least as far as we're aware.

If the clothes & hats were the same, I wouldn't have asked the question.

Just in case anyone wondered what "Hatchett"'s unprovoked random attack on me was all about, I stepped in a few years ago when he harassed another Casebook member, and it seems he's borne a grudge ever since. That's why he's pretending to have an opinion on Hutchinson, and repeating the same generalized nonsense that has been refuted in depth on multiple threads.

Oh now come on Ben, when I came back to Casebook in '08 you were bullying Christer, and you've tried it with me on and off ever since

You have to accept it Ben, it's what you do.
Anyway, whats this about you coming to Toronto, when?
I'm about an hour away but if possible, maybe we could get together for a brew?
Stranger things have happened...

[Batman]

Hutchinson has the all attributes of another Paker. Maxwell was also likely fibbing and we have The Star doubting Kennedy because Lewis was already on the record saying virtually the same thing.

If anyone doubts Hutchinson is a just looking for his 10 minutes of fame, check this out. http://casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-hutch.html

1. Hutchinson's story is only corroborated by Lewis who describes a completely different man standing where he claims and Lewis story was out before Hutchinson turned himself in. Lewis's story was available during the inquest which was before Hutchinson turned himself in. Lewis story was also out orally in Dorset St. and nearby.

2. Not a single policeman noticed him or bothered to check him out through all the hours he claimed to be standing there.

3. Despite giving us a pantomime Jewish villian described down to the quantum level, Hutchinson doesn't even include seeing Lewis who he got this story from even though she went down the court!

4. Mary doesn't even bother saying hi to her friend on passing him by.

5. Even if Abberline initially believed him, Hutchinson was never used indentification parades (which they had) despite having a better view of JtR than Scwartz and Lewende put together.

There's more. The article above is v.good.

[Ben]

Hi Batman,

As I mentioned on t'other thread, I think Hutchinson lied to conceal his true reasons for being there, not to pretend falsely that he was there at all.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for that.

It's obvious that many of those "attributes" would not be considered in the context of a fleeting sighting with a stranger. Hutchinson would not have known Astrakhan's "eating habits", for instance! I'm also not seeing any category for tie-pin shape, eyelash colour etc.

This lady might, however:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rEBtpWQ7x8

I'm genuinely saddened that you've feel you've been "bullied" by me, Jon. That was not my intention; indeed, the very idea of bullying two blokes as shy, retiring and un-opinionated as yourself and Christer is simply beastly.

I'm about an hour away but if possible, maybe we could get together for a brew?

A brew or two sounds like a great idea! I'd like that very much, and will get in touch about it nearer the time.

All the best,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

Hey, I'd like to join Jon and Ben for some brews! Can anybody spare a plane ticket?

[Wickerman]

There are so many faults with your suppositions, it is hard to know where to start.

Hutchinson has the all attributes of another Paker.

Hutchinson never changed his story. I am assuming you know why the police did not trust Packer?

Maxwell was also likely fibbing and we have The Star doubting Kennedy because Lewis was already on the record saying virtually the same thing.

That is not true.
The Star knew nothing of Lewis on Saturday when the Kennedy story broke. Lewis never spoke to the press, so your conclusion is based on a false assumption.

1. Hutchinson's story is only corroborated by Lewis who describes a completely different man standing where he claims and Lewis story was out before Hutchinson turned himself in. Lewis's story was available during the inquest which was before Hutchinson turned himself in. Lewis story was also out orally in Dorset St. and nearby.

You are falling into the same timeline trap that others have fallen into.
No-one outside the Inquest knew what was said inside the inquest.

2. Not a single policeman noticed him or bothered to check him out through all the hours he claimed to be standing there.

What is your source for this?
Whatever paperwork Abberline had at his disposal to verify Hutchinson story is not known to us today.

3. Despite giving us a pantomime Jewish villian described down to the quantum level, Hutchinson doesn't even include seeing Lewis who he got this story from even though she went down the court!

Forget what he told Badham, what did he tell Abberline?

4. Mary doesn't even bother saying hi to her friend on passing him by.

Not unusual, especially as she was suddenly, 'entertaining'.

5. Even if Abberline initially believed him, Hutchinson was never used indentification parades (which they had) despite having a better view of JtR than Scwartz and Lewende put together.

How many astrachan-coated suspects did Abberline have waiting to be identified?

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for that.

It's obvious that many of those "attributes" would not be considered in the context of a fleeting sighting with a stranger.

"Obvious"?
Once again Ben, you underestimate the abilities of the average human being.
Hutchinson did say that he had seen this man (IMO, Joseph Isaacs) in the area before.
So he knew what he dressed like.

A brew or two sounds like a great idea! I'd like that very much, and will get in touch about it nearer the time.

Yes please do.
I do have an unpredictable work schedule, but hopefully I can figure something out.

[Batman]

Hutchinson never changed his story. I am assuming you know why the police did not trust Packer?

Never changed his story? Did you read the link on Casebook I posted? It changed.

In light of these curious anomalies, I decided it would be worthwhile to examine Hutchinson’s original statement, (which is lodged at the Public Records Office). In doing so I came across a startling fact and one of paramount importance completely absent from the many books published on Jack the Ripper, which have included the statement of this labourer. For the long-held acceptance that Kelly and her client passed him at the ‘Queen’s Head’, is totally at odds with his original statement that he was standing outside another public house, one called the ‘Ten Bells’. And this particular public house we find, was sited at the corner of Church Street and Commercial Street, opposite Spitalfields Market. And this glaring discrepancy in Hutchinson’s testimony, we find was discovered only after his statement, labouriously taken down in longhand had been completed. However it was altered by a simple expediency: The wording of the ‘Ten Bells’ was struck through and substituted by that of the ‘Queen’s Head’. By such an act, the construction of Hutchinson’s account became more readily acceptable. Yet even this alteration cannot explain or dispel his flawed testimony. - http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...roo-hutch.html

The Star knew nothing of Lewis on Saturday when the Kennedy story broke. Lewis never spoke to the press, so your conclusion is based on a false assumption.

What is the title of the Kennedy story in the Star - "...a doubtful story..." right? Lewis had given a statement to the police on the 9th but was also talking on the 9th orally to people about what she had seen. In fact there is confusion today over if they are the same person or not because the stories are nearly the same, except Lewis gives more details and Kennedy makes ommisions and mistakes. Hence Kennedy had her own version of the Lewis story. Kennedy isn't at the inquest for good reason because of this. Lewis is! A doubtful story... yes indeed.

You are falling into the same timeline trap that others have fallen into. No-one outside the Inquest knew what was said inside the inquest.

A vacuum eh? So did the newspapers use a crystal ball when they published accounts of the events talked about at the inquest the day before?

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881113.html

What is your source for this?

That there is no mention of police seeing Hutchinson? There is no report of it anywhere in the media. They reported these things.

Not unusual, especially as she was suddenly, 'entertaining'.

Yes usually she did talk to people she knew when 'entertaining'. See Blotchy + MJK, meeting Cox and the greetings.

How many astrachan-coated suspects did Abberline have waiting to be identified?

I don't follow. We know from the case files that they had someone who could be used for identification and was used as such (no, not referring to Swanson's Seaside police home in Brighton candidate) even up until Sadler.

Lewende or Schwartz seem the favourites, but its not this man Hutchinson who got such a detailed view of JtR that he could describe down to the last detail (and yet forget seeing Lewis enter the court!). How can that be?

The link I posted noted the following "The edifice, indeed the very foundations of Hutchinson’s story, rested solely on his points of observation."

.. and boy what a story he tells.

That's it. Either one says the only reason they accept him is because of Lewis or one ends up just accepting what he claims without any corroboration. He also doesn't attend the inquest. Why? Because he will be busted for lying his head off. Look at the state Maxwell got herself into and the warning she was given.

Let's discredit him another way.

My question to you "Did Hutchinson say he watched a man with Kelly near Thrawl Street, while he was standing outside the ‘Queen’s Head’? Didn't he claim to hear their conversation from his vantage point?" How is that possible?

[Ben]

Hi Scott,

Yes, do come along! First round's on Jon.

Hi Jon,

Hutchinson did say that he had seen this man (IMO, Joseph Isaacs) in the area before.
So he knew what he dressed like.

No, he did not say, and nor did he imply in any way, that he had seen Astrakhan man prior to the 9th November sighting. He stated to the press that he saw a man on the Sunday morning after the murder who he "fancied" might have been the same man he saw with Kelly on the night of the murder. This severely damages the argument that Hutchinson "knew what he dressed like" from more than one sighting, unless you consider it likely that Hutchinson saw two different men on Friday and Sunday, each sporting the same horseshoe tie-pin, red stone seal, linen collar, white butttons over button boots, dark eyelashes and upturned moustache.

"I could swear to the man anywhere" - says Hutchinson.

Anywhere except Petticoat Lane it seems, where he allegedly spots the same man wearing precisely the same unique clothes and accessories, but wonders if it might have been a different person???

[The Good Michael]

There is no way Hutchinson responded to a "list" provided by Badham, unless you're seriously suggesting that, in addition to height, weight etc, Badham had a form for witnesses to fill in which included "shirt collar material?", "eyelash colour?", "tie-pin design?", and other sillinesses. Unless you think that happened, it's quite clear that Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was offered more as a narrative.

You know there's another alternative, don't you? There would have been a standard description list as Jon suggests. But there would have been a final question like: Is there anything else about the person that would distinguish him from another. After that, a man would be free to embellish or to add real information depending upon what, if any motives he had, and there's where the narrative part comes into play.

Mike

[Ben]

I agree, Mike.

In fact, yours is probably the most likely alternative.

[Wickerman]

Hi Scott,

Yes, do come along! First round's on Jon.

How are your refereeing skill's, Scott?

Hi Jon,

No, he did not say, and nor did he imply in any way, that he had seen Astrakhan man prior to the 9th November sighting. He stated to the press that he saw a man on the Sunday morning after the murder who he "fancied" might have been the same man he saw with Kelly on the night of the murder.

What he also said was;
"I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

Seeing as how he didn't know the guy, then he would not know he lived in the neighbourhood if he hadn't seen him in the neighbourhood.

"I could swear to the man anywhere" - says Hutchinson.

Anywhere except Petticoat Lane it seems, where he allegedly spots the same man wearing precisely the same unique clothes and accessories, but wonders if it might have been a different person???

Where does it say he was, "...wearing precisely the same unique clothes and accessories" ?, another assumption Ben?