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

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Here's that Echo, 13th November quote mentioned earlier...

"...From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance."

The striking thing to me, in addition to the obvious about Hutchinson, is the 53 people mentioned!!! 53!!! And they all made statements!

Hmmmm...now that isnt a fugure you make up. So where are these 53 statements? And where in heavens name were the 53 people at the inquest, and why weren't they called if they all pertained to the supposed "murderer"?
Someone was very picky, wasn't he?

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

In any case, the shabby-genteel detail is far more important imo.
Certainly true and well expressed.

Amitiés,
David

edit: curiously, Hutch's loquacity doesn't make Astrakhan Man more "real" than Mrs Long Shabby-Genteel.

[DVV]

Hi Observer,

Firstly she stated at first that she couldn't determine the age.

Observer

That's the point! And she then gave the age of Leather Apron.

Amitiés,
David

[Observer]

Hmmm, I think there is...

In fact, I often imagine her replying to the Coroner :

"Oh, of course he was a foreigner, and over 40! Don't you read the Star, sir ?"

Seriously, how could she say "over 40", having briefly seen the man's back ?

Amitiés,
David

Hi David

Firstly she stated at first that she couldn't determine the age.

But how about stance as a pointer? Also she must have seen the back of his head, she literally walked right passed the couple, feet away in fact, this could of provided a clue. She also heard the mans voice, that could have been a factor. Alsothe police possibly lead Elizabeth Long as to the age of the man.

all the best

Observer

[DVV]

Hmmm, I think there is...

In fact, I often imagine her replying to the Coroner :

"Oh, of course he was a foreigner, and over 40! Don't you read the Star, sir ?"

Seriously, how could she say "over 40", having briefly seen the man's back ?

Amitiés,
David

[Observer]

Hi David

Not an ounce of evidence to suggest as much.

all the best

Observer

[DVV]

Hello Observer,

well...I don't know...
I've always thought Mrs Long had in mind all that stuff about Leather Apron, when she said "foreigner", "over 40".

Amitiés,
David

[Observer]

Hi David. Mrs Long didn't refer to the man she saw with Annie chapman as being Jewish, she reffered to him as looking like a foreigner. Something about his appearance obviously struck a cord with her, there were a lot of them about in that area at that time, and seeing as Mrs Long lived among them I'd say she would have been fairly well qualified to pick out a foreigner. And if you'll notice I do prefer Lawende as a witness over Long, marginally, but Lawende's description is slightly of more worth.

all the best

Observer

[Sox]

One important thing to bear in mind with these descriptions. Police never follow a single line of inquiry unless they have a prime suspect, giving out a fresh description would not have meant that a previous one had been discounted, despite what the papers say.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Observer and Gary,

I appreciate the helpful information. So there were two such reports, the Nov 13 Echo and the Nov 15 Star. Up to speed now, thanks to you. Carry on.

Roy

(shades of the Toffs thread)

[DVV]

Hi Observer,

Mrs Long could recognise a Jew by a mere glance at his back.
She's obviouly the best witness.
Who else ?

Amitiés,
David

[Observer]

I prefer 'Tom', thank you. She didn't see her man's face and would be useless as a witness for identification purposes. And what exactly was Garry Wroe's 'revelation'? I don't really keep up with all the Hutch stuff, so no doubt I've missed a thing or two that's worthwhile.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

Regarding Gary Wroe's findings, see DiVV's post above.

Long passed closer to Chapman and her suspect than did Lawende to his suspect and Eddowes. Lawende did state that he would not know the man again. As for the worth of their sightings, I don't personally believe there's a great deal of difference, Lawende having a slight edge, for he saw his suspects face.

all the best

Observer

[DVV]

I confess I do, Phil.
I understand that most posters might be irritated by other posters' suspects, but...
I spent months, really, thinking about the possible Hutch/ Fleming identity, tried my best to forget it, but I couldn't...truly.
Nobody named Hutch is more likely to be Hutch than Fleming, as strange or shocking as it seems.
These days, I often shut my mouth about the Miller's Court murder cos I think it's not fair to pollute a thread with a suspect-biaised approach...
But in fact, JtR was X, and no-one else...and necessarily, once you've found him, sadly, everything fits.

Amitiés mon cher Phil,
David

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

Ahh, you mean, Mons. Fleming non?

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

As regards Hutchinson... I have grave doubts as to whether he even existed. Phil

Hi Phil,

a real man entered the Station on Monday 12 Nov, at about 6, I have no doubt about that.
And I'm also pretty confident it wasn't Toppy.
It wasn't either Hutchinson the cabinet-maker.
Nor Hutch the butcher.

Amitiés,
David