Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[Observer]

Hi Macca

Answer me this, lets suppose Hutchinson was making up the part of his statement where he sees Mary Kelly and Mr A, and there are very good reasons to doubt his story, what was Hutchinson doing standing opposite Millers court very shortly before Mary Kelly's murder?

If we look at his statement he's implying that it was Kelly herself, and the man who had picked her up that led him into Dorset Street. What if this part of his statement is fiction? His reason for being in Dorset Street evaporates. Where does this leave him? It leaves him needing to explain his presence there, he needs to give an alternative reason for being there.

Given the above is what really happened that morning how do you suppose he came to be there? If the above is reality then his presence there is very suspicious indeed. In my opinion suspicious enough to warrant complicity in the murder of Mary Kelly.

Observer

[FrankO]

Didn't Hutchinson say something like: "I've given Mary money from time to time"? If so - he is certainly putting himself forward as a benevolent man....

Something that might neutralize what you're saying here, at least to some extent, is that this wasn't in the original statement he made. He first made his statement, and was then interrogated by Abberline. During this interrogation he informed Abberline that he had occasionally given her a few shillings, quite possibly in answer to some question.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fleetwood Mac]

But let’s look at it this way. Hutchinson’s account paints a picture of an upstanding citizen who wants to help the police in catching a killer, right?

Cheers,
Frank

Not necessarily.

Didn't Hutchinson say something like: "I've given Mary money from time to time"? If so - he is certainly putting himself forward as a benevolent man....being suspicious you could argue that he's planting a seed in the minds of the polis....being kind you could argue he's no more of a sad man wanting to be admired.

[FrankO]

Probably because the former really isn't that important. The police weren't after a chronology of a day in the life of George Hutchinson, they wanted a description of the man that was seen with Kelly and how the two of them were behaving together, and on that subject, Hutchinson was very thorough.

I should have expressed myself better, Adam. What I meant was something I wrote in an earlier post: compared to all the relative trouble Hutchinson took, his reason for doing what he did was rather vague and thin.

Like Best & Gardner in Stride’s case, Hutchinson was just surprised to see such a well dressed man in Kelly’s company. Unlike Hutchinson, Best & Gardner didn’t take any action. Lawende’s companion Levy seems to have harbored some unclear suspicions against the couple at the entrance to Mitre Square, but didn’t even take the trouble of looking at them.

If Hutchinson would have felt Kelly was in danger of some sort and had expressed why he felt this way, then it would have been easier to swallow why he did what he did.

I'm not quite sure how wandering the streets all night would indicate that Hutchinson did infact have money?

That's because you overlook a step. Hutchinson tells us that the reason why he walked about all night is that his usual digs was closed. Which infers he went there with money in his pocket to try and get a bed, but found it to be closed.

As for the 3 days....again, it's not a long time, and there could have been any number of perfectly reasonable explanations for this. It's not like he came forward a year later and said "Oh, I just remembered...."

I agree that in general 3 days isn’t particularly long – I believe Mrs. Long in Chapman’s case only came forward after 3 days too.

Hutchinson however isn’t the average witness for reasons I, and others, have mentioned before.

But let’s look at it this way. Hutchinson’s account paints a picture of an upstanding citizen who wants to help the police in catching a killer, right? If you agree, then you’ll probably also agree that it’s a small and logical step to say that he actively watched Kelly’s punter and memorized as much as he could about him for the purpose of doing something good with it when that proved necessary. So, looking at it from this perspective, 3 days is rather long.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fleetwood Mac]

PS

I'll ask you one thing Macca, go with me (and the police of 1888) and assume that Hutchinson did make up the vast majority of his statement specifically the part regarding his meeting with Kelly and her well dressed punter. Now consider the fact that he was at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder between the unholy hours of 2:30 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. taking a more than healthy interest to the entrance to Miller's court, in effect a very short time before her murder. Does he become any more of a suspect to you now?

Observer

Ahh....you see...Observer....I think you and I are tackling two different questions.

You're asking....."is he a possible?"....I'm asking...."who is most likely?"

Well....of course he's possible....but then so are hundreds of men in London.....were you to put him up as the most likely your case wouldn't last 5 seconds.

But then what you're doing is some fleet-'o-foot ha'penny turn where you're not so fleetingly muddying the waters of 'possible' and 'decent suspect'. You need more than hanging around could have been lying. No matter the conversations that have gone before or anything else for that matter.

[Adam Went]

Ruby:

Elizabeth Long only saw his back. The only reliable witness accounts are from Lawende, Levy and Harris. They described 'Jack' as variously having a 'sailor' look, or else he made them feel afraid (this doesn't suggest anyone looking middle or upper class)"

Elizabeth Long didn't need to see any more than his back to be able to judge how well dressed he was. As for other reliable witnesses.....I take it that you don't follow the testimony of Schwartz, Smith, Marshall, Brown, etc then?

As for the man having an appearance of a sailor....I don't recall ever reading that Hutchinson was a sailor.

Obviously I'd be scrutinising Lawende if he'd been alone, for up to an hour, at a murder scene, and his witness statement hadn't of been verified by two other people (his alibis).

Most of the other witnesses in the case were alone when their sightings took place. Generally you're not going to be with a group of people if you're walking the streets at 2 or 3 AM, and it's raining, in 1888 or now, unless you're up to no good. Anyway, as I said before, Hutchinson has atleast part of his testimony backed up by Sarah Lewis.

Frank:

So, what remains striking in his account is the contrast between the vagueness of his reason for being there and doing what he did on the one hand, and all the details he disclosed about his meeting and the possible suspect on the other.

Probably because the former really isn't that important. The police weren't after a chronology of a day in the life of George Hutchinson, they wanted a description of the man that was seen with Kelly and how the two of them were behaving together, and on that subject, Hutchinson was very thorough.

Another thing is that, on the one hand he told Kelly that he didn’t have any money left after his visit to Romford, while on the other he told the newspapers: “After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed”, suggesting that he did have money.

I'm not quite sure how wandering the streets all night would indicate that Hutchinson did infact have money? He was only a casual labourer, and according to his statement he'd been away, so I wouldn't imagine he was rolling in cash at that point in time.

Also possible, but my point is: why wasn’t that in his account then?

He did say that he knew the victim.

For one, if Kelly’s punter actually raised Hutchinson’s suspicions and he decided then & there to pay that close attention to him and memorize the man’s details, it seems he must have done so with the intention of doing something with that information. Or otherwise, why did he stoop down and look the man in the face? Still, it took him three days before he did do something.

Perhaps he intended to visit MJK shortly afterwards to berate her on "What do you think you were doing with that man!?" - especially if Hutchinson had some sort of love interest in her, which doesn't seem out of the question.

As for the 3 days....again, it's not a long time, and there could have been any number of perfectly reasonable explanations for this. It's not like he came forward a year later and said "Oh, I just remembered...."

Cheers,
Adam.

[Observer]

PS

I'll ask you one thing Macca, go with me (and the police of 1888) and assume that Hutchinson did make up the vast majority of his statement specifically the part regarding his meeting with Kelly and her well dressed punter. Now consider the fact that he was at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder between the unholy hours of 2:30 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. taking a more than healthy interest to the entrance to Miller's court, in effect a very short time before her murder. Does he become any more of a suspect to you now?

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Macca

Regarding Hutchinson's description of the man he allegedly saw on the morning of 9th November 1888 in the company of Mary Kelly you posted

It's fanciful because of what.....

This subject has been done to death here in this forum, in my opinion it would be pointless to revive it here, everything has been said on the subject already. Have a look around and you will see the very convincing arguments put forward by various posters as to why Hutchinson's description was fanciful.

Observer

[FrankO]

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?

Hi Adam,

That’s quite possible, although there’s hardly any room, if any, in his total account that he went for a drink after he had passed the Whitechapel Church. He could have done anything innocent, but the thing is that he just didn’t go into it. So, what remains striking in his account is the contrast between the vagueness of his reason for being there and doing what he did on the one hand, and all the details he disclosed about his meeting and the possible suspect on the other.

Another thing is that, on the one hand he told Kelly that he didn’t have any money left after his visit to Romford, while on the other he told the newspapers: “After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed”, suggesting that he did have money.

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.

Also possible, but my point is: why wasn’t that in his account then?

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?

No, that’s not what I’m suggesting. Like I wrote in my previous posts, there’s more than just the detailed description. There are more things about his whole story that raise questions and there’s the timing of his coming forward.

For one, if Kelly’s punter actually raised Hutchinson’s suspicions and he decided then & there to pay that close attention to him and memorize the man’s details, it seems he must have done so with the intention of doing something with that information. Or otherwise, why did he stoop down and look the man in the face? Still, it took him three days before he did do something.

Another thing is that Hutchinson went out of his way to look the man in the face, but what important things does he tell about the man’s face? Nothing much in particular that might actually distinguish his face from a lot of others. Just some of the rather ordinary things like moustache, clean shaven, no whiskers. And bushy brows. But how could he have seen them when “the man hung his head down with his hat over his eyes” and to some extent he was looking up towards the light of the lamp?

So, it’s more than just the detailed description.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

And as ever the burden of proof sits with the accuser. It is not up to me to prove something that you are suggesting didn't happen; it's up to you to offer something concrete - anything concrete will do - doesn't have to be chapter and verse - that provides a modicum of evidence.

A tad one-sided? I'm suggestion that you apply the exact same logic to every suspect or witness to ascertain their credibility. Not guess work based on personal preference - but logic based on say a checklist applied evenly to all.

"How do you know?" Well.....yeah.....I don't know.....but then I'm not making accusations so I don't need to know.

It's fanciful because of what.....

Detailed description? Man out of place? Not seen by anyone else - or did someone else give a statement describing a similar man?

It's possible he took a good old look...not that unbelievable....there is evidence that other reasonably wealthy men took it upon themselves to visit the East End at night....well Blotchy wasn't seen coming out....no one heard anyone else going in in a close environment though they did hear a faint cry.......seems people weren't noticing a great deal that night. It's not as unbelievable as you seem to think - because it seems you have come to think that anyone displaying any sort of wealth was automatically mugged in the East End and thus would not venture into that area. And even where he was proven to be lying - still no evidence to warrant him being a 'major suspect'.

And your circle just can't be closed without more than a man hanging around outside possibly being economical with the truth - because whatever explanation you offer - there is a plausible alternative.

Were you to put together a tick box of pre-requisites for suspect status. You may go with....

a) A history of violence - particularly toward women - particularly toward prostitutes.

b) Was with the victim on the night of the murder.

c) Was seen close by.

d) And so on.

Well....yeah....Hutchinson fits one....McCarthy fits two.....Blotchy is right in the room and no one sees him come out.....So I'd go Blotchy/McCarthy/Hutchinson in that order. Though I would give you that Hutchinson is a better placed suspect than the like of Druitt and others not seen in the area and with no known history of violence toward women. But he ain't at the top of the list mate.

[bolo]

Hello all,

on the one hand, I find Hutch's detailed description of Astrakhan Man hard to swallow. On the other hand, he said that he was following Mary and her client and thus was prepared to take a better look at him than other witnesses who only saw possible suspects in passing.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Boris

[FrankO]

-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.

Hi Ruby,

I agree that, even if you’re not particularly interested in cars, you would notice a Ferrari cruising down the street. But would you be able - or even feel the need - to memorize all or even a number of the accessories? Would you (if you weren’t familiar with a Ferrari) be able to describe the logo, the rims, the head lights, any stripes on the side, the grill? Because that's the equivalent of what Hutchinson did.

Cheers,
Frank

[Rubyretro]

The suggestion that Hutchinson's man would have stood out and would be asking to be mugged, is only partially correct. Take a read through the rest of the witness descriptions - one recurring theme is that Jack is very, very rarely described as being a filthy, dirty, low individual simply dressed in rags and looking like he just stepped out of the sewers. Other witnesses described a man who was reasonably well dressed for the neighbourhood he was wandering in, perhaps even borderline middle-class.

OK, sure, nobody else went as far as Hutchinson did, but if you bothered to read through some accounts of these people, in historical books, newspaper reports, and other such material, you would find that a lot of these people liked to dress up and appear richer and more upper-class than they really were. This is Victorian society we're talking about, not modern day society. The occurrence that Hutchinson described, despite popular belief, is far from being an uncommon one.

Anyway....as I said before...I wouldn't mind betting that if you swapped the testimony of Lawende and Hutchinson, Lawende would be the one under the spotlight and Hutch would be the innocent passer-by who was caught in a bad situation. People judge the witness by their testimony without actually knowing the first thing about the witness as a person or understanding what context their statements were made in.

Jumping to conclusions, I believe would be the best term to use.

Cheers,
Adam.

[QUOTE=Adam Went;129839]"The suggestion that Hutchinson's man would have stood out and would be asking to be mugged, is only partially correct. Take a read through the rest of the witness descriptions - one recurring theme is that Jack is very, very rarely described as being a filthy, dirty, low individual simply dressed in rags and looking like he just stepped out of the sewers. Other witnesses described a man who was reasonably well dressed for the neighbourhood he was wandering in, perhaps even borderline middle-class"

Elizabeth Long only saw his back. The only reliable witness accounts are from Lawende, Levy and Harris. They described 'Jack' as variously having a 'sailor' look, or else he made them feel afraid (this doesn't suggest anyone looking middle or upper class)"

."OK, sure, nobody else went as far as Hutchinson did, but if you bothered to read through some accounts of these people, in historical books, newspaper reports, and other such material, you would find that a lot of these people liked to dress up and appear richer and more upper-class than they really were. This is Victorian society we're talking about, not modern day society. The occurrence that Hutchinson described, despite popular belief, is far from being an uncommon one".

Nowadays we have a whole lot of fake designer clothes run up in China, and we haveebay, and shops like TK MAXX....so people can dress to appear to be richer than they are. With foreign travel, things like fake rolexes have become things that are accessible to us on far flung market -places. There is even a case to argue that the more visible the designer labels you have on, the lower your class will be perceived to be (AKA Chav). In the 19th century, one would be relient on tailors, one's own dressmaking skills, and flea markets -I doubt that 'fake' astrakhan existed, anymore than huge fake gold watches.

"Anyway....as I said before...I wouldn't mind betting that if you swapped the testimony of Lawende and Hutchinson, Lawende would be the one under the spotlight and Hutch would be the innocent passer-by who was caught in a bad situation. People judge the witness by their testimony without actually knowing the first thing about the witness as a person or understanding what context their statements were made in"

Obviously I'd be scrutinising Lawende if he'd been alone, for up to an hour, at a murder scene, and his witness statement hadn't of been verified by two other people (his alibis).


"

[Adam Went]

The suggestion that Hutchinson's man would have stood out and would be asking to be mugged, is only partially correct. Take a read through the rest of the witness descriptions - one recurring theme is that Jack is very, very rarely described as being a filthy, dirty, low individual simply dressed in rags and looking like he just stepped out of the sewers. Other witnesses described a man who was reasonably well dressed for the neighbourhood he was wandering in, perhaps even borderline middle-class.

OK, sure, nobody else went as far as Hutchinson did, but if you bothered to read through some accounts of these people, in historical books, newspaper reports, and other such material, you would find that a lot of these people liked to dress up and appear richer and more upper-class than they really were. This is Victorian society we're talking about, not modern day society. The occurrence that Hutchinson described, despite popular belief, is far from being an uncommon one.

Anyway....as I said before...I wouldn't mind betting that if you swapped the testimony of Lawende and Hutchinson, Lawende would be the one under the spotlight and Hutch would be the innocent passer-by who was caught in a bad situation. People judge the witness by their testimony without actually knowing the first thing about the witness as a person or understanding what context their statements were made in.

Jumping to conclusions, I believe would be the best term to use.

Cheers,
Adam.

[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.

ps :I am amazed nobody here has yet strangled and disembowelled me over
one extremely ill -formulated statement -obviously JtR WAS violent towards live women (he murdered them !). I mean't that he didn't apparently beat,
scream at, torture or do anything to them before he rapidly achieved them
-and therefore it would be hard to spot signs of his M.O. in the previous public behaviour of a suspect. It would be more interesting to see if that suspect had occasion to be exposed to carcasses, and what his reaction was to them. To know that, we would have to study his early life.