The Red Handkerchief...

[GUT]

G'day Sally

What is this? Every time I visit this thread I'm struck by an increasing sense of being stuck in a Kafkaesque nightmare...

"You go to the forums to see the thread. Upon arrival, there is a poster who says "You may not post without literal correctness. Everything must be a proven fact in every single instance, no matter how commonplace; otherwise it will be deemed Invalid. You will be deemed Invalid'

I'm convinced that the only way to escape the terrible circle of repetitive pedantry is to re-post the list.....

1. Kelly meets somebody known to her at the corner of Dorset Street
2. Kelly and A.N. Other have a conversation to the effect that Kelly has no money.
3. Kelly and A.N. Other part ways.
4. Kelly is observed by A.N. Other to be accosted by a 'well-dressed' man
5. A. N. Other observes said 'well-dressed' man offer Kelly money - or perhaps alternatively a red handkerchief in the second example if he is in fact Mr Higgins-Isaacs, Kelly's secret fiance [otherwise it should be observed that transactions between prostitutes and their clients almost always involve the exchenge of sex for cash] Fabulous! The answer to her prayers!
6. A.N. Other observes Kelly and the man go back to Kelly's lodgings.
7. A.N. Other engages in overtly curious intrusive monitoring of Kelly’s meeting with a presumed client.
8. Kelly is not seen again until her death.
9. A.N. Other, or the pressman recording her, used the phrases “met the murdered woman” and “murdered woman Kelly”.

Will this save me from the invalidity of incorrect list-making? I can only pray that it's not too late.....

Small issue with point 8, TWO people report seeing her alive after this.

[Ben]

Hutchinson did not kill anyone, I would be shocked beyond words if he was a killer[ very shocked]

I think you'll find that "shock" would subside pretty quickly, Richard, and if you'll forgive my humble prediction, I envisage that after recovering from the terrible "shock" - and after several very deep breaths - you'll find the opportunity to pause, ponder, and reassess. It may then dawn on you that a local man behaving as known serial killers have behaved, engaging in suspicious pre-crime loitering activity, coming forward as soon as he realised that his loitering behaviour had been clocked by someone else, living in the heart of the murder district, dropping an apron directly en route between Mitre Square and the Victoria Home where he lived, and seeking to implicate the conveniently scapegoated Jews with his description of Astrakhan man, just as he had done on the night of the double event...does not an unconvincing ripper make.

I think you've invested for many decades in a certain picture of Hutchinson, and that picture may be wrong, especially if it originated from the 60s when Druitt was the ripper and Hutchinson (and anyone else of "local" and working class origins) was a traditionally honest "salt of the earth" paragon of truthful virtue.

Then again, maybe I'm the one who's been taken for a ride? Maybe I've been led astray by boring things like criminolgical insight and historical precedent, when all along I should have been clapping an eye on the caped surgeon extraordinaire who swept in with his black bag before disappearing with a twirl of his moustache?

[GUT]

G'day Ben

Clearly anyone in Hutch's position has to be looked at closely.

I personally believe that the police did just that.

What totally stops me at the moment is that there is not one mention that after doing so, he was ever considered as the killer.

[Ben]

Hi Gut,

There is no evidence that the police ever considered Hutchinson as a suspect. They may well have done so if they had experience of serial killers injecting themselves in the investigation as witnesses, but they didn't. With voluntarily offered witness accounts, the only options under consideration were "truthful witness" or "publicity/money-seeker". Moreover, the police were in no position to prove Hutchinson innocent even if they did suspect him.

All the best,
Ben

[GUT]

G'day Ben

Moreover, the police were in no position to prove Hutchinson innocent even if they did suspect him.

Of course not no one can be proven innocent.

But do you really think that with Hutch's story the police didn't look?

Even with a lack of knowledge of SKs they knew about killers and knew to look at the last person to have seen the deceased, just read some murder cases at Old Bailey or better yet in the All England Reports.

[Ben]

Hi GUT,

But do you really think that with Hutch's story the police didn't look?

They would have "looked" to see if he wasn't another two-a-penny publicity seeker, just as they had with Packer and Violenia before him. In neither of the latter two cases do we find any evidence that the police treated them as suspects, despite their claims to have seen the victim around the time of her death, and it would be quite wrong to envisage Hutchinson being treated any differently, in my opinion.

Remember, the police had no evidence that he was anywhere near Dorset Street that night. They only had his claim to that effect, and claims can be legitimate or bogus.

All the best,
Ben

[GUT]

G'day Ben

Remember, the police had no evidence that he was anywhere near Dorset Street that night. They only had his claim to that effect, and claims can be legitimate or bogus.

But doesn't that contradict the claim that he only came forward because the testimony of Mrs Lewis put him on the spot. It can't be both, either the police were on to him, so he came forward with a BS story or the police weren't onto him at all because they had no evidence he was anywhere near Dorset Street?

[Ben]

Hi GUT,

It can't be both, either the police were on to him, so he came forward with a BS story

What I've suggested - and what several authors have suggested before me - is that Hutchinson "came forward with a BS story" in order to pre-empt (and so prevent) the possibility of Lewis recognising him on the streets or in a lodging house, which would have resulted in him being dragged in as a suspect and asked what the hell he was doing there. By coming forward voluntarily, however, he presented himself as a co-operative witness with a valid reason for being there - a reason that involved a convenient Jewish black bag-wielding "suspect" upon whom to deflect suspicion. That way, if it were subsequently registered by the police that Hutchinson must have been the man in the wideawake described by Lewis, he had only to say, "Yep, that was me, and I was only there because I was worried about the scary man with Kelly...just as I told you".

Hutchinson (in this scenario) had only to fear the possibility of his account being rejected as a fabrication, and it ultimately was. But rather than prompting the police to consider his guilt, the doubt invested in his account merely resulted in the conclusion that he lied about the whole thing, including his presence there. In other words, when his original plan of constructing a false explanation for his loitering presence (as seen by Lewis) backfired, and the his story dismissed as nonsense, the police coverted Hutchinson into a publicity-seeker when they should have converted him into a suspect. But having no experience of serial crime, it's difficult to fault them for that decision.

Regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
I do not recollect Hutchinson being seen as a pillar of society in the long gone days of Ripperology , his story has always been viewed as ''over the top'', but it was not until Bob Hintons' publication. that people took on a different view.
It all depends on who George Hutchinson was...is he a unknown individual, or is he ''Topping''. if the former, then we have no character reference , but if the latter, we have...and that does not suggest that he was a brutal killer , in any shape or form...
I find it insulting to the memory of GWTH, that we should even contemplate such accusations,that does not imply that he was squeaky clean of possible exaggerations , and I do not even reject the idea, that he may have spent some time in her room, whilst awaiting for the lodgings to reopen ..[ something he could hardly admit] and I do not reject the fact that he may have been paranoid,about being seen with Kelly, but I do believe A man existed, and he described him accurately, but it was the police that jumped on the idea that they should go after this man...Hutchinson said he never saw him as menacing.
The above is entirely possible , also that Hutchinson was one hundred per cent honest, and had nothing to hide.
But a killer, and possible JTR, not in a million years....
Regards Richard.

[Observer]

Could have fooled me, Obs.

He's reading my mind now. Remarkable.

The poll "suits me" fine, thank you. Some people believe that Hutchinson was the ripper and voted accordingly, whereas others believee he was a plausible enough candidate to prevent them voting either way. Then there were those who voted "no" despite conceding that he's one of the better bets of a bad bunch. Then there are those who know nothing about serial crime and its perpetrators.

So nice poll, all in all.

Lovely poll.

It is indeed a lovely poll. Trouble is, the comments provided by the various posters do not adhere with your description above. It is another hopeless case of you misinterpreting available evidence. The "people" who believed he was a plausible enough candidate to prevent them voting either way was a solitary one. Again, you say, there were those, (note the plural) who voted no, but who conceded he was one of the better bets of a bad bunch. Again, it was a single voter who expressed this opinion; a lanky Fleminesue 1. With such arrogance, you implied, the reminder know nothing of serial crime and it's perpetrators.

How do you know who voted in the poll? Oh yes I forgot you can read minds. Speaking of which.

No, they wouldn't have been "au fait" with it, because they had absolutely no experience of it - hence, no "duh" required. We reserve the "duh" for those who spend hours of their lives talking utter nonsense on serial killer message boards without ever troubling to educate themselves on the behaviour of known serial killers. The 1888 police had an excuse for not knowing "the mindset of the serial killer". You don't.

It matters not that the police had no experience of serial mutilators when considering Hutchinson a suspect. Can you not appreciate that?!

Once again, when he had been discredited (although he was not actually discredited), his evidence was deemed of greatly reduced importance. It remained that he was guilty of being untruthful, acting suspiciously at the scene of a murder, and within the time frame of the perpetration of that murder. Again I ask you, do you not appreciate that at least one officer at the time would have considered Hutchinson a suspect?

Hutchinson was not considered a suspect after his discrediting for the same reason that Violenia wasn't after his, but are you going to argue that Violenia "must" have been so considered, and that the evidence for his being treated as a suspect is conveniently lost to history, as in Hutchinson's case?

Violenia and Hutchinson are not remotely comparable.

Please don't tell me that your unfunny, attempted-cockney monologue extends inexplicably to Hutchinson only!

Haha. I anticipated this. My you're so predictable. Only Ben is capable of humorous cockney monologue! If you have the time, readers, hark back to the gag fest of "cockney monologue" provided by ole Benny boy, but beware, have a sick bag at the ready.

"The Waffleator" (Remember all that? Yeah, you remember).

Who would want to hate those scrumptious syrupy treats?

[Sally]

Small issue with point 8, TWO people report seeing her alive after this.

Hi Gut,

Thanks - Yes - as we know that there were alleged sightings of Kelly the next day. The list was written to highlight the synchronicity between the story of the femaile 'associate', circulated from at least 10th November; and Hutchinson's account to the police on 12th - and following from that, the press.

In that respect, the testimony of Morris Luwitz and Caroline Maxwell is irrelevant. As you will know yourself; there was considerable doubt as the the morning sightings at the time - as the caution given to Maxwell at the inquest demonstrates.

Hutchinson's Astrakhan-trimmed punter would obviously have been a prime candidate for Kelly's killer: his description matched current press accounts of a 'well-dressed' man allegedly seen by various people in the immediate locale in the days leading up to her murder. Hutchinson's contention that he didn't think the man looked dangerous is disingenuous - any such man would've been immdeiately suspicious in the context that he recounted. It might've got him off the hook for not coming forward earlier, however.

The list [minus the part in bold] stands. In spite of protracted attempts by those who disagree to undermine it; nothing of any substance has yet been presented which does that.

Hutchinson's account is demonstrably derivative. That strongly suggest that it was wholly, or in part, a fabrication. That doesn't make him a murderer, of course - just a liar.

That should come as no surprise; a great many have expressed doubt over Hutchinson's story. Apart from it having apparently originated in an earlier story [which I am certainly not the first to observe] the following should be considered:

* Hutchinson gives such a highly detailed description of Mr Astrachan that many have questioned whether his apparent recall could have realistically occurred; particularly in the circumstances described by Hutchinson and in poor visibility.

* Those same details vary between his police and press statement.

* He misremembered the pub which he said he stood against to observe Kelly and her Mystery toff punter - the original 'The Ten Bells' is replaced with The Queen's Head in his police statement

* He gives no physical description of Kelly [although these are commonplace by other witnesses] raising the question of whether he even saw Kelly on the streets that night.

Of course, somebody will construct a counter-argument to all of the above - they always do - but the point is, surely, that it requires a lot of convoluted argument to do it.

The straight line is very often the best fit - and in this case the straight line tells us that Hutchinson was telling fibs.

[Sally]

Hi Richard,

I do not recollect Hutchinson being seen as a pillar of society in the long gone days of Ripperology , his story has always been viewed as ''over the top'', but it was not until Bob Hintons' publication. that people took on a different view.

Well there we are then - its always been viewed as a dodgy tale - as it appears it was at the time, once initial confidence in Hutchinson's story had waned. I think most people would settle for his having been a timewaster; after his five minutes of fame.

If that sounds trite, perhaps we should consider what local fame could've meant to a man one step away from the gutter.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

* Hutchinson gives such a highly detailed description of Mr Astrachan that many have questioned whether his apparent recall could have realistically occurred; particularly in the circumstances described by Hutchinson and in poor visibility.

* Those same details vary between his police and press statement.

* He misremembered the pub which he said he stood against to observe Kelly and her Mystery toff punter - the original 'The Ten Bells' is replaced with The Queen's Head in his police statement

* He gives no physical description of Kelly [although these are commonplace by other witnesses] raising the question of whether he even saw Kelly on the streets that night.

Of course, somebody will construct a counter-argument to all of the above - they always do - but the point is, surely, that it requires a lot of convoluted argument to do it.

Yes, Sally, for some unfathomable reason what you say is more often than not scrutinized and criticized.
One wonders why that is?

I can, off-hand, think of two explanations:

1. People are opposed to you for some inexplicable reason, or ...
2. You get things wrong over and over again.

Let´s take a look at the four points you list now, shall we?

1. Hutchinson gives such a highly detailed description of Mr Astrachan that many have questioned whether his apparent recall could have realistically occurred; particularly in the circumstances described by Hutchinson and in poor visibility.

How poor visibility? How close did Hutchinson come and for how long time? Hutchinson also claimed to have seen the man at the market on the following Sunday, in broad daylight, if I am not mistaken - could it be that he picked up on some of the details and colours then? Was there enough light coming from the lamp that Hutchinson said he stood against to reveal many of the details? Did Hutchinson - like for example Toppy - have a remarkable memory for details, being able to pick up on and remember long series of things?
There´s a lot to consider here, Sally, and maybe we should look at it from ... both sides!

* Those same details vary between his police and press statement.
What - ALL of them...? Or just two? Leaving 40 plus other details matching inbetween the statements? Here´s how Sugden judges the errand:
"Given the length of the statements ... these small discrepancies are not significant. Far more impressive are the numerous points of corroborations (at least forty) between the two accounts."

But you forgot about this, Sally. "Those same details vary between his police and press statement", you merrily claim.

* He misremembered the pub which he said he stood against to observe Kelly and her Mystery toff punter - the original 'The Ten Bells' is replaced with The Queen's Head in his police statement.

He gave the wrong name. That´s misremembering the name of the pub, and not the pub itself. It´s much like getting the name of a street wrong, although you know perfectly well which street you are talking about.

* He gives no physical description of Kelly [although these are commonplace by other witnesses] raising the question of whether he even saw Kelly on the streets that night.

The description could - and, to my mind, would - have been given. It didn´t make it into the Badham report, however. But we know perfectly well that things Abberline spoke to Hutchinson about during his interrogation suffered the exact same fate. Compare to Schwartz and it´s the exact same thing; BS man and Pipeman are described, but Stride is not. That´s how "commonplace" it was to always take the victim description down.

I will not try and voice why other people challenge you on these boards. But my own choice between the two alternatives listed above inevitably falls on number 2.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. You sign off all your posts with "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." That is a good rule to live by - if you can.

[Sally]

Hi Fish,

Thanks. Of course [as I think I remarked in my post to GUT above] we can always find a counterargument.

Overall, however, the point is that there is a substantial weight of evidence that should at least raise doubts over the truthfulness of Hutchinson's account.

That's it. Whether he was a murderer or not I leave to others to decide.

[Ben]

It is indeed a lovely poll.

Yes, I rather thought so.

But then you waded in with your usual inflammatory and painfully ineloquent nonsense, offering the fascinating revelation that the Hutchinson suspect theory belongs in the minority of overall opinion. Yes. Well done. It does. Along with every single suspect theory that has ever been put forward. Yours was an annoyingly redundant observation designed to antagonise. It backfired, it made you look silly, and I'm afraid I responded accordingly. You'll just have to get over it.

I used the plural when describing those who didn't vote but still considered him one of the better suspects, because that is the reality, as you'll discover when you go back to the poll thread. I didn't say anything about a "reminder" or even a remainder of posters having little or no insight into serial killers. I merely noted that among those who reject Hutchinson as a suspect are those who are demonstrably clueless on the subject. You, for instance.

I have no idea which voter you're attempting to insult by calling him a "lanky Fleminsue 1.", but I'm sure sure his self-esteem is in tatters...!

It matters not that the police had no experience of serial mutilators when considering Hutchinson a suspect. Can you not appreciate that?!

Have an actual argument, at least.

No, I don't "appreciate" that. I'm quite sure that it is nonsense.

If you don't "appreciate" that the era in which the police were operating can impact directly on the treatment of witnesses and suspects, I'm afraid there's little helping you.

It remained that he was guilty of being untruthful, acting suspiciously at the scene of a murder, and within the time frame of the perpetration of that murder.

It didn't "remain" that he was "acting suspiciously at the scene of the murder". Not according to the police, who evidently discredited the entirety of his story, i.e. including the claim that he was even there at the time. That's what happened with Violenia, who you unthinkingly and wrongly dismiss as incomparable with Hutchinson. Despite the former's claim to have been the last person to see Chapman alive, he was dismissed as a liar with no connection to the crime scene at all. The vast majority of bogus witnesses - and there were plenty thwarting the progress of the ripper investigations - were motivated by money and publicity, and it was all too easy for the police to cast Hutchinson in the same role, even if they did so in error.

Only Ben is capable of humorous cockney monologue!

I don't remember saying that.

I'm sure there are others equally capable, if not more so.

It's just that you're not one of them, sadly.

But you keep trying, Obs! It'll be like those fun times in 2007 all over again.