The Red Handkerchief...

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm,

Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man fitted contemporary press accounts of a well-dressed man seen in suspicious circumstances; which, whether Hutchinson was telling the truth or not, would probably have helped to convince when he gave his statement to the police.

Naturally, the simplest explanation is that Hutchinson saw the same man reported in contemporary press accounts.

That said, I think to accept that at face value would be simplistic in this case. The press reports describing the well-dressed man are sufficiently generic as to make it impossible to know whether there was one, or several men. The general hysteria in the area following the murder of Kelly encouraged suspicion of virtually anybody thought to be behaving 'oddly' as the general populace, if not the authorities, grasped at any straw they could find. In such circumstances, the extent to which we can safely rely on contemporary press reporting is debateable.

Of course, there is also the obvious possibility that Hutchinson consciously modelled Mr. Astrakhan on those same press reports. It may seem improbable at first glance, but when you consider that Hutchinson's statement to the police matches slightly earlier press reports almost verbatim at several points; maybe not so improbable.

Were that the case, then we might begin to wonder at his motivation.

There are many possibilities here.

Hi Sally,

It could have been based on newspaper reports plus any real well dressed person he'd seen on the streets plus his imagination. It would not be surprising that Hutchinson was reading about these cases and discussed/gossiped it with other people like a lot of others. I really don't see anything special about Hutchinson. In my opinion he is just one of the nutcases or false witnesses during those murders. They were probably used to cops in their beat, they did their song and dance and if there was a reward good if not not. People without jobs, relatively desperate, in bad circumstances could easily do anything for a potential reward of any sort. Either they live in a shelter or out in the cold or be hungry.I don't think there was a concept of anything bad happening to them if they become a false witness ie..there were no laws against, they had nothing to lose etc,.
To me there have to be one more thing or curious fact other than what he did to think he was a suspect at all.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Given the total absence of any evidence for contemporary police suspicion against Hutchinson, he cannot be regarded an official police suspect. If people are more comfortable with the term "person of interest" to refer to an individual against whom suspicions have been levelled, then I'm happy to roll with that. I fear we will forever disagree over Hutchinson being considered a suspect. I think the fact that policing in general was in its earliest phase n 1888, coupled with the fact that they had no precedent for serial killers coming forward and pretending to be witnesses, is a compelling enough reasons - along with the total lack of evidence - to conclude that Hutchinson was never suspected.

It's fine for people to challenge this, but it needs to be appreciated at the very least that there is a world of difference between merely suspecting a person and actually resolving those suspicions. They didn't have a magic wand with which to determine the guilt or innocence of suspected parties, hence the unresolved cases of Klosowski, Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog. There would have been a great many men suspected during the course of the investigation who were never proven innocent, and Hutchinson would have been one of them if he was ever suspected (which he almost certainly wasn't).

Speculating that he might have been suspected is one thing, but to then argue that he must have been "ruled out" as well is a bridge far too far. It is using one no-evidence speculation to bolster another.

"Alibis" you can forget straight away. Hutchinson made it very clear that he dot have one for the Kelly murder, and he could easily have bluffed his way out of the others by claiming he was asleep in the extremely busy Victoria Home on those nights (i.e. just like every other night). Even in the exceptionally unlikely event that the police did suspect Hutchinson, they had no means of shoring up those suspicions beyond staking him out and hoping to catch him in the act, and unless anyone wants to argue that the police were still interested in doing that a year later, when Alice McKenzie was killed...?

Hi Varqm,

I really don't see anything special about Hutchinson. In my opinion he is just one of the nutcases or false witnesses during those murders.

If there's a crucial and obvious difference between Hutchinson and the other "nutcases or false witnesses", it's that none of these were seen by another witness loitering opposite a ripper murder scene, seemingly fixated with it. Nor did any of them come forward as soon as they discovered they'd been seen by the "another witness" in question. While Hutchinson cannot be proved to have engaged in such behaviour, it's the only realistic explanation that doesn't involve implausible "coincidence".

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

“The fact that Hutchinson appears nowhere in Police files or memoirs as a suspect” is only an indication that he was never considered a suspect, and if he wasn’t even considered a suspect, it can hardly be argued that he was dismissed as an unlikely one.

I suspect it is the result of your turn of phrase, Hutchinson was never (as far as we know) listed by the police as a suspect. I don't think anyone has suggested that idea.

What has been said is, that once Abberline received his voluntary statement, the subsequent meeting with Hutchinson will have been a dual case of Abberline allowing for the possibility that he is either, interviewing a witness, or interrogating a suspect.
Depending on how believable this new witness was, and on the content of what he had to say.

[c.d.]

Exactly. Abberline wanted to know just what the hell were you doing outside of the murdered woman's apartment. That question doesn't change depending on whether this was an interview or an interrogation or whether he was considered a witness or a suspect. The question remained the same and Hutchinson needed to have a damn good answer.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

It could have been based on newspaper reports plus any real well dressed person he'd seen on the streets plus his imagination.

It is rather amusing that such alternatives are considered as, a 'tailors' dummy', and a 'composite of previous witness descriptions' (yet totally unrelated as to detail), rather than simply take the witness at his word.

It does not matter how impractical or unbelievable any fringe alternatives are, but rather to come up with anything, however ludicrous, with which to maintain the argument that Hutchinson was lying.
A perspective completely without foundation.

[Ben]

What has been said is, that once Abberline received his voluntary statement, the subsequent meeting with Hutchinson will have been a dual case of Abberline allowing for the possibility that he is either, interviewing a witness, or interrogating a suspect.

No, it wouldn't have been.

He was allowing for the possibility that Hutchinson was either a legitimate witness or a bogus, attention-seeking one. The police had precedent for both types of behaviour, whereas the notion that the real Jack the Ripper would waltz into a police station pretending to be a witness had no precedent whatsoever, and was thus very unlikely to have been entertained as a possibility.

Exactly. Abberline wanted to know just what the hell were you doing outside of the murdered woman's apartment.

No, Abberline wanted to know if Hutchinson was being truthful regarding his very presence outside the murdered woman's apartment. It doesn't become gospel just because Hutchinson said so. With so many attention-seekers infesting the case, it was the task of Abberline to determined whether he was telling the truth about being present at the crime scene as a witness, or a time-wasting liar like Matthew Packer.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

It is rather amusing that such alternatives are considered as, a 'tailors' dummy', and a 'composite of previous witness descriptions' (yet totally unrelated as to detail), rather than simply take the witness at his word.

What do you mean "totally unrelated as to detail"? If the Astrakhan fabrication was a "composite of witness descriptions", they didn't have to "relate" to one another. Hutchinson needed simply to borrow whatever pieces of press nonsense had been most popular, and thus stood the best chance of being lapped up as accurate by the populace. The Jewish appearance had been popular even since the "Leather Apron", and black bags/parcels had been doing the rounds from the Stride murder onwards, with "Sarah Roney" being the latest offender. Astrakhan was essentially a composite of various bogeymen ripper attributes that had been doing the rounds.

In addition, there was a very specific account that appeared in the Daily News on the 10th November, which was so strikingly similar to Hutchinson's account that it may be regarded as next to impossible that it wasn't a chief source of inspiration for Astrakhan,

Again, you can embrace the woeful delusion that latter-day suspicions of Hutchinson's account are "fringe" ideas if you're insistent upon it, but I find reality works considerably better. Your condemnations are both valueless and inaccurate, and it angers with an unusual intensity that you can fee comfortable lashing out with such irritating accusations when you should be aware of the extreme "fringiness" of your own "Isaakstrakhan" hypothesis.

[Wickerman]

Show me where we read of 'gaiters', Astrachan-trimmed coat', gold watch chain, dark jacket, light waistcoat, horseshoe tie-pin....

Do you really need help with such a simple question?

It is more than obvious to anyone who can read that the important details which may distinguish one person from any another have nothing whatsoever to do with any previously published suspect descriptions.

Whereas - age, moustache, red neckerchief/handkerchief are all we have that anyone could identify as 'potentially borrowed'. Given that 'age & 'moustache' are common elements across the suspects . Only the issue of the neckerchief/handkerchief remains of interest, and here we are.....

[Ben]

Show me where we read of 'gaiters', Astrachan-trimmed coat', gold watch chain, dark jacket, light waistcoat, horseshoe tie-pin...

You spectacularly miss the point.

The accessories and clothing items you mention (and want to stick, hilariously, on Joseph Isaacs) are all of a piece in depicting a particular type of individual. Astrakhan coats were often worn by Russians and Eastern Europeans, and would thus have been a suitable garment to adorn a fictional suspect if the intention was to depict him as a foreigner. As I've mentioned before, it had been speculated in the press that the killer may well have been Jewish or a foreigner.

Equally, the expensive looking accessories all indicated a wealthy individual, and if Hutchinson sought to depict the ripper as such a person, he had only to conjure up a number (quite a considerable number!) of accessories that might fuel that impression. Again, the Chapman murder had given rise to the belief that the killer might have been a surgeon, and surgeons dress nicely and carry the tools of their trade in a black bag, or so your average labourer might think...

[Wickerman]

The accessories and clothing items you mention (and want to stick, hilariously, on Joseph Isaacs) are all of a piece in depicting a particular type of individual. Astrakhan coats were often worn by Russians and Eastern Europeans, and would thus have been a suitable garment to adorn a fictional suspect if the intention was to depict him as a foreigner. As I've mentioned before, it had been speculated in the press that the killer may well have been Jewish or a foreigner.

None of which rules out Isaacs as the subject.
Your whole argument relies on a succession of 'ifs', nothing established, nothing proven, nothing even demonstrable.
Because you choose to believe the subject was invented does not make it so.

Equally, the expensive looking accessories all indicated a wealthy individual,....

There's nothing obviously 'wealthy' about the suspect, his entire attire may well have been shabby, flea-bitten & moth-eaten.
Even the lowliest of dossers often sported a well-worn bowler or shabby top-hat.
You have only your assumption to back your argument that the suspect was wealthy. Every item of clothing mentioned could be bought for coppers in Petticoat Lane. Especially by someone who had a reputation as a 'poser'.

[Ben]

None of which rules out Isaacs as the subject.

I'm not saying it does. Isaacs is ruled out conclusively as "the subject" for other, far more important reasons, such as the police's complete dismissal of him as a suspect, which couldn't possibly have occurred if they thought he was Astrakhan man. But if you fancy going through this all over again, just say so.

I don't "choose" to believe the "subject was invented". I'm simply obliged by the evidence to arrive at this inescapable conclusion based on the fact that Hutchinson's statement was discredited. But if you fancy going through this all over again, just say so.

There's nothing obviously 'wealthy' about the suspect, his entire attire may well have been shabby, flea-bitten & moth-eaten.

But either you accept Hutchinson's words or you don't.

You can't just fiddle with them in the hope that you can make them seem more palatable. Hutchinson said that the man wore a "thick, gold chain", not a crude imitation, and no, the clothing and accessories reported by Hutchinson could not have been "bought for coppers in Petticoat Lane".

[Varqm]

If there's a crucial and obvious difference between Hutchinson and the other "nutcases or false witnesses", it's that none of these were seen by another witness loitering opposite a ripper murder scene, seemingly fixated with it. Nor did any of them come forward as soon as they discovered they'd been seen by the "another witness" in question. While Hutchinson cannot be proved to have engaged in such behaviour, it's the only realistic explanation that doesn't involve implausible "coincidence".

Ben

The man at 2:30 AM being Hutchinson is not proven by any way shape or form. Not even close. The newspapers and police did not as far as we know and I''ll go by that. It's just your fantasy/imagination/extrapolation.

The ripper was seen by Lawende, Harris Levy, Long and he continued and did not get spooked. I'll go by that. You therefore assume he must have a connection with those Miller's Court people and give that as a reason he got spooked.There is no proof that Hutchinson has any connection with those Miller's Court people at all one way or another.The newspapers and police did not as far as we know and I''ll go by that.

Any of those nutcases or false witnesses could have told any story they wanted. Since there was no law against and ,significant to me,they were relatively in desperate or bad circumstances - any reward/notoriety was good - the sky was the limit. Hutchinson got several hours to make a story and for all we know even without the morning's inquest he would have done so. You assume he got spooked as opposed to he used part of Lewis's testimony.

But if you believe Hutchinson was telling the truth then it's different .
.

[Ben]

Varqm,

You never actually address any of my responses to your points. You just keep repeating your original post, almost verbatim, as though the points were never addressed. Don't do that anymore. Present counter arguments if you have them, and I will address those in turn.

It is also very surprising, considering that you post almost exclusively in the Hutchinson forum, that you've got it into your mind that connecting Hutchinson and Lewis' wideawake loiterer is just my "fantasy/imagination/extrapolation". Conduct a little more research and you'll discover that a great many people think as I do, including those who believe he told the truth, and the reason for this is very obvious: Sarah Lewis saw someone standing outside Miller's Court at 2:30am, apparently watching and waiting for someone to come out, and as soon as this detail was publicly divulged, Hutchinson came forward and claimed that he was standing outside Miller's Court at 2:30am, watching and waiting for someone to come out. The only "fantasy" here is the notion that this was one giant "coincidence".

The ripper was seen by Lawende, Harris Levy, Long and he continued and did not get spooked.

I've dealt with this already, but you just repeat the original objection without bothering to address my response, so in the spirit of fun repetition, I'll write out my response again. The man with the neckerchief was seen by the Jewish trio ten minutes before the discovery of the victim's body. How could he have said, "Yes, that was me talking to Eddowes ten minutes before the discovery of her body, but Mr. Astrakhan must have snuck in after I left, and inveigled, dispatched and mutilated her at lightening speed"..? without being suspected immediately? The reality is that Hutchinson could not have come forward as Lawende's man - and under the guise of an innocent witness - even if he wanted to.

There is no proof that Hutchinson has any connection with those Miller's Court people at all one way or another.

Nor does there need to be any.

Hutchinson could have feared subsequent recognition by Lewis, whether she was a mild acquaintance or a complete stranger.

Hutchinson got several hours to make a story and for all we know even without the morning's inquest he would have done so.

Several hours? What was wrong with the three days since the murder? If he was just another nutcase and/or reward-seeker, he could have approached police with a bogus story at any time from the discovery of the murder onwards, and yet he just happened to come forward as soon as the inquest closed and its details were essentially public knowledge, including Lewis' wideawake man.

Odd "coincidence", that.

[Patrick S]

Ben,

You have your hands full, it seems, with a few other conversations. I'm afraid my response is somewhat more boring. So, I'll be brief.

My view is not simply to endorse whatever the contemporary police believed. Like anyone who is objective, I have my doubts about Hutchinson. I find his description far more detailed than what one would reasonably expect. However, I didn't speak to the man. I didn't look him in the eye. Abberline did. And both are long sice dead.

Based upon Abberline's reputation, career, track record, etc., that's really all I have to base my opinion on. Would it surprise me if Hutchinson was lying, mistaken, embellishing? No. Until I - personally - have something more subustantial, I don't really have firm ground upon which to stand from which to contradict Abberline.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello, Ben

Sarah Lewis saw someone standing outside Miller's Court at 2:30am, apparently watching and waiting for someone to come out, and as soon as this detail was publicly divulged, Hutchinson came forward

I'm not aware that it was publicly divulged - at least, not in the press. Only a few hours at most separated Lewis's statement at the inquest and Hutchinson coming forward to the police. That's precious little time in which to have decided to "insert himself" into the enquiry, and to have made up that story in all its crazy (and attention-seeking) detail.