Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[tnb]

Hutchinson eh? What a bloke.

all the best

Observer

[Rubyretro]

Can you tell me why you would absolutely believe this, Ruby?

Frank

Hi, Frank -it's because Mac convinced me that, had Astrakhan Man existed, then he would have been the equivalent of a Ferrari cruising down the street
(except that a Ferrari would be less vulnerable than a lone man), and that all those working class men would certainly have noticed someone of this description.

[Observer]

Hutchinson eh? What a bloke.

all the best

Observer

[DVV]

Hi Observer,

that was definitely a yeah yeah, and all your last posts deserve the biggest yeah yeah, imo.

Amitiés,
David

[Observer]

Hi Mike

So am I, I very nearly left it out though.

all the best

Observer

[The Good Michael]

Because eventually the police dismissed Hutchinsons Story as highly highly unlikely?

I'm glad you used a question mark.

Mike

[Observer]

Hi Harry

Lets have a little truth here.
If it was not a fact that the person Hutchinson described was not identified,then please state who he was.

Somewhat reminicent of the Goulston Street graffiti that one hehe. It could well be that Hutchinson did not see anyone in the prescense of Mary Kelly that night, in effect he made it all up.

If it is not a fact that the described person did not resemble anyone in the company of other victims,then state who he did resemble.

No one, he was a ficticious figure.

It is a fact that many people treat Hutchinson with suspicion.

Can you blame them Harry considering his rather detailed description of the man he alledgedly saw with Mary Kelly that morning?

We do not know whether Aberline acted to prove the belief he expressed in Hutchinson,except letting Hutchinson accompany officers.In principle he should have done more,but any in depth enquiries appear to have failed to locate the last,and therefore best suspect,reportedly,seen in Kelly's company.I wonder why?

Because eventually the police dismissed Hutchinsons Story as highly highly unlikely?

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Dave

Yeah...

Is that a yeah yeah, or a yeah yeah?

all the best

Observer

[harry]

Lets have a little truth here.
If it was not a fact that the person Hutchinson described was not identified,then please state who he was.

If it is not a fact that the described person did not resemble anyone in the company of other victims,then state who he did resemble.

Hutchinson described the man as Jewish appearance.Fact,and the word I used was appraised not mislead.Read carefully.

It is a fact that there was a delay in Hutchinson coming forwasd.The body was discovered Saturday,Hutchinson did not come forward untill the Monday Evening.

I did not say each one separately raised suspicion,but indicated that taken in total they did.

It is a fact that many people treat Hutchinson with suspicion.

We do not know whether Aberline acted to prove the belief he expressed in Hutchinson,except letting Hutchinson accompany officers.In principle he should have done more,but any in depth enquiries appear to have failed to locate the last,and therefore best suspect,reportedly,seen in Kelly's company.I wonder why?

[DVV]

Yeah...

[Observer]

Indeed Adam. I'd say that Lawende, Harris, and Levy saw what they said they saw, to put them on a par as witnesses with Hutchinson is a bit silly.

Observer

[Adam Went]

Frank:

Hutchinson gave no reason for being there in the first place, virtually no reason to go out of his way to take particular notice of the man, no reason follow the couple, no reason to wait that long.

Actually, he said that he'd just returned from Romford. Perhaps, after the hike, he felt like a drink, so he went for a drink at the pub, spending whatever money he had left and therefore having nothing left to give MJK when she asked him, eh?

And if Kelly was a personal friend or possibly a bit more to him than that, and the man looked somewhat suspicious, he has every reason to be curious/concerned and follow them to see what's going on.

As to the fact that Hutchinson’s description was much more detailed than that of other witnesses, my guess is that modern experts in the field and experienced police officers would be wary of Hutchinson because of his detailed description alone.

So are you suggesting then that if Hutchinson's story about where he had been and what he was doing had remained exactly the same, but he had delivered a basic, generic witness description like all the rest of them did, you would be more inclined to believe him, right? That seems somewhat ridiculous, to judge a witness not by their character or the story they gave, but by the details of their sighting?

Observer:

Incredible, you really are making it up as you go along, are we to believe any of the witnesses from the autumn of 1888? What say we throw them all out.

It is quite "incredible", isn't it? As I mentioned before, people complain because we don't know enough about JTR and what he looked like and how he acted - here we have a clear description and yet a good percentage of people choose to ignore it, or even label the witness as a serial killer. It's a lose, lose situation for the witnesses....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Observer]

It seems you are a great believer in adhering to the facts, how do you know that Hutchinson was not severly rebuked by the police? Wasting police time comes to mind here. Also,when we are assesing witness credibility isn't it a tad one sided when we put Hutchinson's fancifull statement alongside the very believable statements of Lawende, Harris and Levy? Can you not see this?

Observer

[Fleetwood Mac]

Incredible, you really are making it up as you go along, are we to believe any of the witnesses from the autumn of 1888? What say we throw them all out.

Not at all. The reverse in fact. I'm saying that to pick holes in Hutchinson's statement demands that you pick holes in other witness's statements. That is no more than logic. And it can't be proven that Hutchinson is lying anymore than it can be proven anyone else is lying - except where there is evidence which tips the balance beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not making a case for Blotchy being the killer or Hutchinson not being the killer - I don't have a suspect that I've claimed for my own. I am saying however that Blotchy is a better bet than Hutchinson based on what we definitely know of that night (assuming you believe Cox's statement).

It 's a bit more than looking up at a window though isn't it? Hutchinson claimed to have encountered Mary Kelly very shortly before her murder. He also provided the police with a rather remarkable description of a man he allegedly saw with Kelly, remarkable in it's detail considering the fleeting nature of the sighting, and the fact that the sighting was observed at night, under poor street lighting. The police eventually discounted Hutch's encounter, where would that have left Hutchinson, up poo creek without a paddle I would have thought.

Except the police were privy to all of the above information and Hutchinson - in fact - was not left up **** creek.

I would have certainly questioned him about the details. But with no one having seen Hutchinson gone into the room then he could never be up **** creek - as you would have had to have least have had that in those days to mount a case against him.

[Observer]

Hi Observer....

a) It could quite easily be speculated that the 3 men didn't see that which they claimed to see - and made it up or changed the details for whatever reason you or I wish to imagine. Ditto Hutchinson. .

Incredible, you really are making it up as you go along, are we to believe any of the witnesses from the autumn of 1888? What say we throw them all out.

b) Looking up at a window does not make him a 'major suspect'. Take that to court - and it certainly wouldn't stand up. I'm a tad perplexed here on why people are claiming he should be viewed as a 'major suspect' or with 'considerable suspicion' when the best being offered is that he was at a murder scene - not sufficient. The only thing that would make him a major suspect is were it to turn out that the police had checked out his story and he was found to be lying - then again even that wouldn't make him a major suspect as he could just as easily have been an attention seeker and only claimed to be the man Lewis had seen.

It 's a bit more than looking up at a window though isn't it? Hutchinson claimed to have encountered Mary Kelly very shortly before her murder. He also provided the police with a rather remarkable description of a man he allegedly saw with Kelly, remarkable in it's detail considering the fleeting nature of the sighting, and the fact that the sighting was observed at night, under poor street lighting. The police eventually discounted Hutch's encounter, where would that have left Hutchinson, up poo creek without a paddle I would have thought.

Put yourself in Abberlines shoes shortly after he realised that Hutchinson wasn't telling the entire truth, how would he have percieved the situation at that juncture regarding Hutchinson? Here we have a witness in Hutchinson who stood opposite Millers Court shortly before Kelly's murder, and it turns out (in police eyes) that he's less than truthfull regarding his statment, surely the police would have viewed this development in the negative.

What questions would you have asked Hutchinson from this junction onwards? I know I would have asked him if his sighting of Kelly and Astrakhan was a fabrication then what was he doing there at 2 30 in the morning. Of course, all Hutchinson had to do was stick to his guns, and I'm quite sure that is what he did, I'd have had him very carefully watched though.

Observer