Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"but there is nothing..Fish..that you have said..that puts Hutch out of the picture for Me"

So I´ve noticed, Ruby. And in accordance with that, I will not take up too much of your time discussing the matter with you. But I would like to point to your question:
"If the Police attatched 'reduced importance' to Hutch's statement the next day, and if indeed they had 'proof' that he could not have been where he said he was -then why did they take him to identify MJK's body ? "

The process would have been something that took place over time, Ruby. I am not saying that the proof must have been at hand from the outset, and indeed, the Echo article seems to point to a situation where suspicions were nurtured that Hutch´s testimony may not have been all it initially had promised to be. The article does not categorically state that his testimony had been disproven, only that the journey to a (quite) possible discrediting had been embarked upon. And in that context, if the suspicions had been proven wrong, it would have been foolish not to follow up on Hutchinsons material as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. You will notice that Hutchinson´s journey to the morgue, as well as his police-accompanied travels happen after the Echo´s article, but before the Stars report of a discrediting.

As for the rest of the enigma, I completely concur with what Mike has to say in his post - you do not send potential Rippers on their way without having enough substance for doing so. You just don´t.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

But Mike..Lewis's description of Wideawake Man was common knowledge by the time Hutch presented himself to the Police. It was taken seriously because she spoke at the inquest.

I don't think that it is coincidence that Hutch placed himself in the same spot as 'Wide Awake Man' , even if he was only a fantasist.

Personally, I don't think that the Police were "chimpanzees" at all, and neither do I buy that they couldn't make the connection.

Indeed, I think that they took his description seriously initially -and didn't think that he was just a 'timewaster', of which they must have had many- it was precisely because he DID match Lewis's description. So they had a corroboration of a witness as to the presence of another witness (as with Lawende). No wonder that they were excited by his Statement.

Why I think that they then discounted him, I have already explained at length.

[The Good Michael]

I will just say this: It is absolutely impossible, given Lewis' testimony and Hutchinson's statement, that Hutchinson wasn't checked out and dismissed as Lewis' man. What does this checking out mean? Well, it simply must mean the description given by Lewis had no resemblance to Hutchinson. Unless chimpanzees were on the police force, which seems to be what some folks are suggesting, Hutchinson was checked out and his version was for a time, believed by someone as astute, if we go by Dew's impressions, as Abberline. What the only possibility is if we want to look at Hutchinson as murderer, is that he was a brilliant sociopath who could lie as well as anyone we'd want (or not) to meet. Not only that, but he could (much like Sherlock Holmes) adjust his appearance and height so as not to be accused. This is Joran van der Hutchinson for sure.

Or it's Toppy. But many of us knew that already.

Cheers,

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Fish, I won't wade into all these details again, perfectly adressed by Ben and Garry, but instead reiterate why I -in my own personal opinion-I suspect Hutch (and I'm only going to address SOME of the reasons !) :

1) I am convinced by the 'anti-semite' link, and the more I find out about the anti-semitism in London at the time, and the more
I see about the thuggy anti-semite thugs hanging about near those clubs, and the more I see about the actual murder sites -the more I think that I'm on the right track. Infact, I see an escalation by the killer leading up to the GSG (probably egged on by the
anti-Jewish demonstrations, the hysteria surrounding jewish suspects, the Chief-Rabbi having to intervene, and the Police looking for a jewish suspect). The GSG reads like a bit of 'overkill' to Me -just to nail the 'message' home.

Hutch gave a clear Jewish suspect to the Police. Apart from saying 'Jewish Appearence' 'foreign Appearence' he put a horseshoe on the suspect. Once, I saw a clear link with being an ex-groom (and maybe that's true as well), but a friend pointed out to me that if you google 'hamsa horsehoe' (try it) you get lists of jewish jewellery ...and (as our friend likes 'overkill' , he had to add in the 'Petticoat Market' detail..which was' 90% Jewish' ). Infact he was at great pains to implicate a Jew in the Kelly murder.

He also lived right near Goulston, and the site of the GSG was on his way back to his lodging house from Mitre Square.
I wouldn't imagine that he fiddled about in the dark with a bit of chalk...but I bet you that he knew that it was there, if he didn't write it earlier.

He could easily have told the Police -man to man- that he was looking for a 'freebie' from Mary- I don't buy that it would have been either embarrasing nor incriminating -he chose to 'invent' a jewish suspect -and I think that was the important bit for him.

It is true that many people were anti-semite...but they didn't get involved in the case, and give a detailed 'dodgy' description of a fictitious suspect to the Police.

2) If the Police attatched 'reduced importance' to Hutch's statement the next day, and if indeed they had 'proof' that he could not have been where he said he was -then why did they take him to identify MJK's body ? By the time that Hutch saw the body, she had already been identified by Barnett and (McCarthy ? the person escapes Me) -who knew her well. Hutch was
supposedly a mere acquaintance...what did it serve (since the body was nearly unrecognisable) to have an 'acquaintance'
identify a body that had already been identified...could it be to gauge his 'reactions' ? In which case, they may have seen
through the fiction of A Man, but they had not found an alibi to eliminate Hutch.

Abberline may have been a 'seasoned' cop, but I persist in saying that he was only human, and he had his own profile in his mind of the killer, and Hutch didn't fit it.

3) What was Hutch doing on the streets at that hour anyway ? He must have had a pretty good idea of the time that it took to get back from Romford. He said that it was too late for the Victoria Home (he said that he had no money left, but he had apparently saved enough for a doss)...but there were other lodging houses open all night.
Why would he want to be on the rainy streets, after a long walk ?

4) The Police assumed that MJK was a Ripper killing, and surely they would want to know where a suspect was on the nights of the other killings? Yet, it bothers Me that Hutch was supposedly in Romford that night, as far as anyone at his lodgings were concerned (if he had found work, he would not have come back). Therefore, he might have used the same trick before..
leaving town to work, telling everyone about it, and then arriving in the early hours to murder..and only arriving at the Victoria
a day or so later..in which case having nothing to show that he was even in London on the dates of the other murders.
That, added to Abberline's 'gut feeling' might have been enough to get him discounted.

5) People often say -'but he would have been 'Mad' to put himself in the 'hot seat' if he were the murderer' ..but does anyone think that the Ripper was Sane ? He might have appeared so -but he couldn't truly have been so.

That the Ripper blended in with everyone else, didn't fit the popular idea of the 'Ripper', was 'risktaking', 'cool under pressure',
'attention seeking', 'anti-semite', lived in the centre of the Ripper murder sites, frequented prostitutes, was single and kept odd hours, was the right age, was physically strong, had a low unsure income (I'm thinking of the money and rings taken from the victims) is my 'profile'...and Hutch fits it like a glove (and that is without adding in that Hutch claimed to know one of the victims, that he was described variously as an 'ex-groom' and having a 'military appearence'..both of which would give him experience with a knife -if there's any truth in his having been a soldier or a groom-, and the former would give him experience working at night, in low light, performing caesarians -a hazard of birthing valuable foals- and so chopping into wombs of mammals .)

And of course, the murders mysteriously stopped when Hutch became known to the investigation.

I could go on (as you can imagine)...but there is nothing..Fish..that you have said..that puts Hutch out of the picture for Me.., even if he was discounted by the Police

[Fisherman]

Sir Robert Anderson asks:

"does any one think this means anything other than he utilized her services when funds allowed ?"

I think that would depend on how well they knew each other and on what their aquaintance was based. We know that Barnett stated that he had been unable to give Kelly any money at some stage, and that would not have been money for sex in the more direct meaning. The more obvious guess in Hutchinsons case, though, would reasonably be not one of philantropy but of a euphemism. But it may be unwise to regard it as a case closed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Correction - I just had a renewed look at the Hutchinson statement, and it does say that the man hung down his head with his hat over his eyes as he passed Hutchinson - and so it would be "stoopid" of me to press THAT point any further...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fisherman, as far as I’m concerned that doesn’t even make sense. There is always going to be subjective debate over what constitutes “strangeness” and to what degree. One’s individual perception of strangeness cannot possibly have a basis in fact, and as such, I regard the sentence; “It’s a fact that X or Y is strange” to be both meaningless and impossible. I personally don’t consider it strange anymore than Garry does."

The inquest into Mary Kellys death was a very short affair, as you will know, Ben. If we do not count officials like medicos and police officers, nine (9) people were called to that inquest. That was what the joint effort of the coroner and the police had dug up.

Out of these nine, only two offered observations of men that could possibly have been the killer (Cox and Lewis).

Out of these two, only one (Lewis) made the observation at a time that tallied tolerably with the estimated time of Kelly´s death.

After the inquest, but for Hutchinson, nobody came forward to offer any sighting of a possible Ripper at the crucial time.

So, Ben, we have no more than one sighting of a man who was close in both time and space to Kelly at her death. And on top of that, that man was described as watching Miller´s court!

And you, Ben, are suggesting that not a soul in the police force, and not a soul in the press would have been able to realize that if a man came forward, saying that he was in the same spot at the same time, doing the same thing as Lewis´man, then this man would be a contender for being identical with Lewis´man?

It is a complete non-starter, and it baffles me that you fail to realize/admit it. And yes, it IS a fact that it would be odd in the extreme if it had been overlooked, given the parametres involved. It goes way, way beyond any personal interpretations of what is strange and what is not, I´m afraid, at least on the planet where I spend my time.

"I never claimed that the connection was never made. I’ve suggested that it’s entirely possible, for reasons already outlined, that it wasn’t. The extant evidence would suggest that the connection wasn’t made, or at the very least, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was."

That, Ben, could have been me writing. I am of the EXACT same opinion - but for all the different reasons!

-I too never would not claim that the connection was never made - but if it was, it was very soon dispelled.

-I too would say that it is extremely feasible that it was never made - for reasons involved in either an incompatibility inbetween wideawake and Hutch, or owing to evidence surfacing due to further investigation, as the Echo put it.

-I too would say that there is no evidence that the connection was ever made - but I would never even dream of accusing the police and press of being a band of blind nitwits (and I am not saying that you do so intently, only that this is how I look upon it - phew!!)

"the whole point about the Echo article is that they were outlining the very suspicions that the authorities were harbouring about Hutchinson’s account"

YOUR whole point, Ben. It´s not even half of mine. I am a journalist, remember, and I have seen thousands of articles where papers have been forced to settle for writing only that the police has seen reason to do this or that - because the police has STATED that they had seen reason to do this or that, and no more. Any journalist would ask, of course, but when faced with a "Sorry, at this stage, we will not go further into matters", there is only so much you can do. You print what you got, full stop. And let´s not loose sight of the fact that the Echo seemingly was the ONLY paper that got hold of this scoop - it´s not as if there was a press conference, mind you. Instead it would seem that a little something was leaked to one paper only, and to get that much must be regarded as a formidable feat.

"Whatever they suspected or didn’t suspect about Hutchinson, the likelihood is that they were never in a position to KNOW."

They did not believe him after a day or two, let´s agree about that. And in that situation they would let him walk if the reason for not believing him lay in a verified belief that he was not wideawake man.
If, on the other hand, they did believe that he WAS there on the night, but did NOT believe that he had told the truth about what he was doing there, then they would reasonably have ... let´s see, what is it you do with men that are proven to have been at a murder site at the crucial time, and who have displayed a suspicious behaviour ...? Hmm ... wait, now I remember: they are sent home, no questions asked!

I´m afraid, Ben, that I cannot help but to be ironical about this. I will return your compliments and say that apart from all other things that have passed between us, and apart from the very obvious fact that we see things differently at times, I would never claim anything else than a rich intelligence and a solid knowledge about the case on your behalf. That is why I am amazed that you cannot see the almighty flaw in this suggestion. It outsizes an elephant.

But then again, you do not always choose to lean against statistical facts, do you? You agree that men stooping down to look other men in their faces are normally taller than the ones they look at, unless other factors are involved, calling for the stooping (and we have no such factors on record in Hutch´s case). But still, you "utterly reject" when I say that what little we have, points to Hutch being significantly taller than Astrakhan man...? How does that cut?

You can, of course, point to the POSSIBILITY that your "hat" scenario may have applied - but since we have NO information at all lining the stooping thing, as it stands, more points to Hutch being taller than Astrakhan man then against it. It would be slightly "stoopid" and totally statistically unviable to suggest something else, methinks...

the best,
Fisherman

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I can see no reason, why that incident could not occur, as if indeed, GH did on occasions help Mary 'out', a favour returned so to speak?
.

Just curious, and an aside to the Great Debate : does any one think this means anything other than he utilized her services when funds allowed ?

[Ben]

“With the same respect, Ben, we simply differ here - I think that it is an absolute fact that it would be very strange if the connection was never made”

Fisherman, as far as I’m concerned that doesn’t even make sense. There is always going to be subjective debate over what constitutes “strangeness” and to what degree. One’s individual perception of strangeness cannot possibly have a basis in fact, and as such, I regard the sentence; “It’s a fact that X or Y is strange” to be both meaningless and impossible. I personally don’t consider it strange anymore than Garry does. But yes, I intend to embrace fully your suggestion that we’ve exhausted that avenue of disagreement.

Unless!

“You mean that one could not fail to see the connection - but you likewise mean that all of the police and all of the press actuallu missed out. It is an awkward stance, and I don´t envy it.”

I never claimed that the connection was never made. I’ve suggested that it’s entirely possible, for reasons already outlined, that it wasn’t. The extant evidence would suggest that the connection wasn’t made, or at the very least, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was. Again, I must respectfully beg to differ with the assertion that there are two viable possibilities that involve Hutchinson not being the wideawake man. Unfortunately, both suffer from an inability to explain away this coincidence of detail between the Hutchinson and Lewis accounts. Even if she wrongly assumed that the man she saw was preoccupied with the court, it still strikes me as bafflingly odd that a real person would then claim to have been engaging in the activity wrongly discerned by Lewis.

.”..which could have been due to the police not yet having been able to confirm their suspicions.”

But the whole point about the Echo article is that they were outlining the very suspicions that the authorities were harbouring about Hutchinson’s account, despite the fact that they were not confirmed. The doubts were concerned with, amongst other things, the delay in his coming forward and the incompatibility with other witness accounts. If they had a “suspicion” that he’d been elsewhere at the time, they’d doubtless have added this to the mix of “unconfirmed reasons for doubt”.

If one were to take a central bullet point from this current seminar it would be that, in all overwhelming probability, the police were left to speculate and make educated guesses in the absence of concrete proof, and with the latter being such a precious and rare commodity in the investigation into the Whitechapel murders, the very worst thing we can do is conjure up invented proof of events that we hope might explain a certain oddity. That’s what I meant when I paid you that genuine compliment that it was uncharacteristic of you to fall into that trap. Whatever they suspected or didn’t suspect about Hutchinson, the likelihood is that they were never in a position to KNOW.

As for Lewis’ man, again, the few indications we have would suggest that his identity was not an investigative priority, and that he was eclipsed in terms of potential “dodginess” by the likes of the Bethal/Britannia man and Blotchy. As such, I don’t remotely share your certainty that Abberline was in hot pursuit of Lewis’ man, or that he instantly made the connection as soon as Hutchinson appeared. For those of us who study the esoteric area that is Hutchinsonia, Lewis’ man is frequently discussed, digested and chewed over, but it appears that scant attention was paid to him at the time, even by the very few that went public with their suspicions of Hutchinson and who were thus in the best position to infer a connection.

“Anyhow, that does not change the fact that NORMALLY when men have to stoop down to have a look at another man´s face, this is due to the stoopers being taller than the men they take a look at.”

Except when the other person is wearing a hat and is attempting to conceal his face with it, in which case it would be “NORMAL” for someone of the same height to stoop down to get a good look.

“And therefore, what little we have points to Hutchinson PROBABLY being a good deal taller than Astrakhan man.”

I utterly reject this, Fish, and I’m rather relieved that this will never enter into mainstream thinking with regard to Hutchinson’s height. First off, my observation concerning the hat is obviously a reasonable one, and if Hutchinson lied about the Astrakhan encounter anyway (there’s a controversial thought!), doesn’t that render this whole issue delightfully moot? No, I’d say that if we disregard implausible coincidence, Hutchinson was PROBABLY the wideawake man and therefore PROBABLY not tall but stout.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

but an invite to room 13, so George duely followed the couple as stated, and after a forty five minute wait, assumed that it not his night, and moved on.

But moved on where, Richard?

To the streets, of course, where he chose to embark on more "walking about" for the remainder of the night, on top of the 13 miles he allegedly walked from Romford, in cold and wet November conditions.

As you observe, Rich, it really was, "not his night".

But having said that, his account was discredited, so...

[Ben]

It’s great that we’ve assembled the old team again, and we’re all going in for these very lengthy posts that are only found on Hutchinson threads!

Hi Caz,

“So the police always told the papers why they were attaching a reduced importance to a witness account?”

I don’t know about “always”, but in this case, it’s very apparent that the very nature of the problems the police were having with Hutchinson's account had at least been leaked to the Echo, who outlined the very reasons for the “very reduced importance” that had been attached to the statement. Since they were referring explicitly to doubts that “the authorities” were having with the statement, it’s clear also they the journalists from the Echo were not themselves responsible for inventing them.

“Do you not think Abberline would at the very least have made a mental note to come back to his stated reason for being there, in the event that his suspect could not be found (?)”

As previously explained, both possibilities have been explored; either Hutchinson was believed to have been the man seen by Lewis’ and was suspected as a consequence (which still doesn’t result in a mythical alibi turning up and clearing him), or no connection was made between the two accounts, with Hutchinson being dismissed as one of the many publicity-seekers that encumber high profile investigations such as these. We know the “authorities” were wondering both why he told his tale and why it wasn’t provided at the inquest, and the conclusion they appeared to have arrived at was that Hutchinson belonged in the same burgeoning category as people like Emmanuel Violenia and Matthew Packer; witnesses who claimed to have been present at the crime scene, but whose stories didn’t add up, and who were not consequently suspected of involvement in the ripper crimes (not because they had been ruled out as such).

“and could easily have underestimated the return journey time; a longer plod in the dark, feeling dejected, weary and wet.”

Well, before we wheel on the string ensemble and pity his plight, recall that the doors to the Victoria Home were closed to non-ticket holders by 12:30am, which means we either accept that Hutchinson misjudged the length of his journey by one and a half hours, or that he returned from Romford in wet, miserable conditions in the certainty that his lodgings would not be available upon arrival in Whitechapel.

What are you arguing in favour of, incidentally? That Hutchinson really did tell the honest to goodness truth about returning home from Romford and seeing Kelly with a client? In which case, are we rejecting the strong indications that his account was discredited and casting him in the mould of Mr. Wideawake, or are we doing a Fisherman, and making long tall Hutchinson the man who was proven to have been somewhere else at the time? I’m confused; you both seem to be determined to find excuses for ruling out the possibility of Hutchinson’s involvement in the Kelly murder, but want to get there via very different and not unproblematic routes. It’s as though you’ve gone from A to C, without perhaps giving B sufficient attention.

No, incidentally, I don’t consider it feasible that Kelly hinted out of the kindness of her heart that Hutchinson could stick around after she’d finished with the client, and that Hutchinson decided to stick it out until it became apparent that her heart wasn’t so kind as to extend to letting Hutchinson in after 45 minutes, or that when he gave up on his expectations and left the scene, he didn’t pop back later to check on Miller’s Court, electing instead to walk about all night. It’s also worth nothing, for the umpteenth time that the account was discredited, so whatever clean bill of health we’re willing to give Hutch at this stage, it’s clear that the police didn’t agree.

I also don’t see how inventing an astonishingly implausible description of a client was preferable to “Fessing up to wanting a freebie from a woman”.

“So you don’t think a likely reason for this is that back in 1888 the police had some positive reason not to connect one with the other”

No, I consider it infinitely more likely that either a) the connection was never even noticed or inferred by police or press (for reasons outlined in numerous posts, and which I hope require no repeating), or b) that the connection was made, and Hutchinson was suspected as a consequence, with nothing of a concrete nature to rule him either in or out as the killer. These are the only two palatable explanations to my mind – everything else is far too dependent on filling in the blanks with imaginary hoped-for scenarios which MUST have happened, and which MUST have resulted in X or Y being concluded for definite.

As I’ve stated numerous times, it doesn’t matter whether we accept that the police made the connection or not. Whatever connection they did or did not make, it takes a mightily unnecessary and vaguely annoying stretch to conclude that Hutchinson was ruled out not just as a witness, but as a suspect as well. I’m personally inclined to the view that they overlooked the Hutch-Lewis connection and may have erroneously, if understandably, dismissed him as one of the many publicity-seekers and time-wasters. Either that, or they did make the connection, did suspect him, but lacked the proof either way to rule him in or out. At present, the attempts to take Hutchinson OUT of the “firing line” are predicated on conjured-up alibis and physical descriptions, the recognition of which should give most discerning commentators ample excuse to keep him IN the firing line.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I should further add,. that if we alter the previous scenerio, we could have GH actually entering room 13, after seeing Astracan leave.... but he could never admit that for obvious reasons, and what if .. he actually left a hanky there, that he was worried that it could be traced to him .. mayby a distinctive red one.
And it was for that reason he incorporated it into his statement, its possible that Mary was given it, by our George in her room.
Completely innocent, but try convincing a desperate police force.
Hense a liitle fib...
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I consider Caz's view, that indeed Hutch may have been told by a 'Spreeish' Kelly, en route to Astracan, that she was in desperate need of money, and as he had no place to kip, and if he promised to keep an eye out for her, she would let him doss the rest of the night in her room, as valid.
It appears that she did not have to wait long, being accosted by Astracan, and Hutch duly obliged , but unexpectingly it was not a quickie against a wall, but an invite to room 13, so George duely followed the couple as stated, and after a forty five minute wait, assumed that it not his night, and moved on.
I can see no reason, why that incident could not occur, as if indeed, GH did on occasions help Mary 'out', a favour returned so to speak?
Regards Richard.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

So the police always told the papers why they were attaching a reduced importance to a witness account? And the press would never dream of guessing why, and stating it as a fact? Or if they did, the police would have promptly set the record straight? You learn something new every day.

Even if we accept that he embarked upon a 13-mile trek from Romford in foul weather conditions in the certainty that his “usual” lodgings would have closed by the time he arrived back in Whitechapel, is it likely that this “hope” would have extended to a 45-minute futile vigil in the cold and rain, followed by more walking around for the remainder of the night once this “hope” was cruelly dashed, never popping back to see if the Astrakhan man had moved on? That’s a bit too much to take on board, especially when we’re also compelled to accept that Hutchinson never saw fit to ‘fess up to this innocent “hoping for a freebie” excuse when communicating with the police.

Well, Ben, assuming Hutch was there at all, it wasn't for his health and he wasn’t running a fruit stall. Do you not think Abberline would at the very least have made a mental note to come back to his stated reason for being there, in the event that his suspect could not be found - or worse, if his whole account could not be trusted? The only way this witness was going to be discarded as not important or no longer credible was if the police did not accept that his suspect had disappeared inside with the victim at the stated hour. It would have been the very last sighting of Mary Kelly alive and with a male companion. And if they didn't accept it, they'd have been fools not to question Hutch’s reasons for telling the tale.

You take an awful lot on board that’s ‘a bit too much’ for others, yet you reject the simple notion that Hutch may have lost track of the time while looking for work in Romford and failing to find any, and could easily have underestimated the return journey time; a longer plod in the dark, feeling dejected, weary and wet.

When he finally made it back (whatever time that was), could he not have bumped into a spreeish Mary asking him for money? He couldn’t spare any so off she went to tap the next likely customer, but she may have hinted that he could stop by later and if she was done for the night she might let him stay out of the kindness of her heart. He need not have seen who finally made it back to her room, but if he turned up later and she was evidently still ‘entertaining’, I can certainly see him giving it 45 minutes before concluding that he wasn’t going to get something for nothing after all. If he didn’t know who was inside and what he looked like, it would explain why it took him time to pluck up the courage to go to the cops, and why he needed to describe an unlikely customer who had made him curious enough to hang around so long. ’Fessing up to wanting a freebie from a woman who was shortly going to be turned into mincemeat was arguably considered a bit too risky.

There is no evidence that the contemporary police ever made the connection between Hutchinson and Lewis’ loiterer, and indeed no evidence that such a connection was inferred until the 1980s at the earliest.

So you don’t think a likely reason for this is that back in 1888 the police had some positive reason not to connect one with the other, but by the 1980s there was nobody left to tell anyone that they needed a check up from the neck up if they fondly imagined that Abberline and co could have totally missed or ignored it if Hutch and Lewis’s lurker had been one and the same?

It seems especially unobservant of them, if, as you assert, there was a:

…generalized police awareness that the key particulars of Hutchinson’s alleged movements tied in so amazingly with those of the man Lewis observed…

In fact, this would indicate that if, as you suspect, they dismissed Hutch as a publicity seeker who wasn’t even there, they must have considered this amazing tying in of movements in order to discard Hutch’s version as bogus.

Once more, in case it's not sinking in, if the police quickly attached a very reduced importance to a sighting of a man entering that room with the victim at gone 2 in the morning of her murder, what does that tell you about their likely feelings towards Hutch and his own 'alleged' movements?

As usual we have reached the push-me pull-you stage, whereby the police had to be in the know one minute and woefully ignorant the next, in exact accordance with whatever argument is currently being made for keeping Hutch in the firing line. If you are wrong about just one aspect of police thinking or intelligence (in both senses), he goes free, presumed innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"With respect, Fish, this isn’t a fact at all. Given the nature of the investigation, the regularity with which publicity-seekers and time-wasters were cropping up, the demonstrated propensity of high profile investigations to overlook seemingly trivial details, and the nascency of policing in general would markedly reduce the "oddity" factor of the police in 1888 failing to have picked up on the Lewis-Hutchinson correlation."

With the same respect, Ben, we simply differ here - I think that it is an absolute fact that it would be very strange if the connection was never made, provided that there was reason to do so. It would come close to not recognizing that the guy in the line-up with blood on his sleeves and a knife in his hand might just be the killer, the way I see it.
But let´s not go here more - we can only get this far, it seems.

"Yes, but they didn’t need to have there for the exact same length of time in order for the suggested “coincidence” to be rejected as outlandish, in my view. There is still too much obvious correlation – both in terms of detail, and the fact that Hutchinson delivered his account as soon as Lewis’ information had been publicly divulged – for a link to be dismissed."

This, Ben, is where you cannot avoid painting yourself into a corner. You mean that one could not fail to see the connection - but you likewise mean that all of the police and all of the press actuallu missed out. It is an awkward stance, and I don´t envy it.
I very much agree that the behavior we know of on behalf of wideawake man seems totally consistent with Hutchinsons movements - or, to be more exact, some seconds of it. No problems there - and I don´t think that the police would have been less clearsighted... Let´s just keep in mind that there are two possibilities that Hutch was not the man:
1. He was there - but on the night before, or
2. He was NOT there.

Both suggestions are viable, although the viability of the first one depends a lot on how much faith we can place in Lewis assertion that the man seemingly watched the court. If she was embroidering ever so little, the odds change.

"I don’t understand how you can conclude this. If they “mismatched” totally, they were in a position to prove that Hutchinson was definitely wrong in his testimony, which clearly did not happen, because this reason was not provided in the 13th November Echo article."

...which could have been due to the police not yet having been able to confirm their suspicions. It would seem, however, that they had reached that goal two days later. What The Echo said or did not say would have depended on what they were told - if the police only said that something had come up that made them doubt the testimony, then the Echo of course not present what that was. Please keep an open mind, Ben!


"It really seems out of character for you to conjure up scenarios for which we have no evidence whatsoever, and to your credit, you’re usually the first to criticise people who do resort to this."

Wow - it seems likewise out of character for you to congratulate me on my debating skills, but I´m not the one to turn such a compliment down! Well, Ben, what I am doing is to try and facilitate for you what could have lain behind the dismissal, since A/ I do not for a moment belive that the story itself was the sole reason for it, and B/you do not seem to be able to take on board what I am saying in a theoretic sense. Therefore, I gave one example of how things may have gone down, and hastened to point out that there would be numerous other scenarios that could explain it.

"It would be an astonishing thing for Hutchinson to lie about leaving Romford when he actually was IN Romford, come to think of it."

It would - but that never was the premise. What I said was that he may have been mistaken on the day, just like Dew says. Perfectly trivial, and happens all the time.

"I disagree, for the reasons I’ve already outlined, and for the reasons pointed out by Garry. I haven’t ruled out the possibility that the connection was made..."

Please observe, Ben, that what I am suggesting is that the connection actually was not made! But I am also saying that if it had been there, the police would have made it. My guess is that as Hutch stepped into Abberline´s room, the good inspector must immediately have thought "could this be Lewis´man?", but then something turned up that made that connection unviable.

Lets also ponder the fact that we had a witness, Lewis, that saw a man that very, very possibly may have been the Ripper. Abberline was aware of that. Let´s then realize that as Abberline was thinking about just who Lewis´man would have been, George Hutchinson stepped in, and presented himself in a role at the same spot, at the same time, and doing the same thing as Lewis said her Ripper suspect had done.

There he was, Abberline. He had a woman who had seen a loiterer outside Kellys room. And he had a man that claimed the role, more or less.

What, Ben, would you have done in such a situation?

I know what I would have done: I would have arranged a meting between the two, and then I would have asked Lewis if Hutchinson culd have been the man she saw. And then, depending on her answer, I would have either dug depeer into Hutch, or I would have been inclined to dismiss him.

We do not have any confrontation between the two on record. Does that mean it never took place? No, it does not. Actually, it would be bad procedure if it did not.

It could have been Lewis that chilled Hutch off. It may have been a Romford man. It may have been any of a great number of potential chillers. And that possibility is so obvious, that it does not call for anybody yelling "Conjecture!", but instead some serious overthought.

"If they were around the same height, Hutchinson would still have been required to stoop if Astrakhan man was attempting to conceal his face with his hat."

But do we have the hat thing on record, Ben? If not, could it still have happened?

Yes, it could - I have no personal problems admitting that it may have happened. But why did not Hutchinson say so, if that was the case? Anyhow, that does not change the fact that NORMALLY when men have to stoop down to have a look at another man´s face, this is due to the stoopers being taller than the men they take a look at. And that remains an unshakable fact. And therefore, what little we have points to Hutchinson PROBABLY being a good deal taller than Astrakhan man.

The best,
Fisherman