Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Garry Wroe]

It is beyond belief that the Police wouldn't compare Hutch's statement with that of Lewis.

I’m not so sure, Ruby. If, for example, investigators regarded Sarah as a somewhat less than upstanding character, they might have been disinclined to accord her story too much in the way of credibility. If they also placed undue weight on Dr Bond’s projected 1:00am to 2:00am time of death, Sarah’s narrative might have been construed as interesting but irrelevant owing to the fact that it entailed a 2:30am sighting of Wideawake – in other words, at least thirty minutes after Kelly was thought to have died. (Bear in mind that a similar situation arose in the Chapman case when ‘civilian’ testimony was all but disregarded when it conflicted with Dr Phillips’ estimated time of death.) It may well be the case, therefore, that when Hutchinson materialized three days later, no-one thought to re-examine Sarah’s seemingly insignificant story concerning the man she observed staring intently into Miller’s Court. And since Hutchinson was apparently discredited within hours, it is unlikely that time and effort would have been wasted in cross-checking the story of a time-waster, even if it had occurred to anyone to so do.

Whilst admittedly speculative, such an interpretation is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility. Indeed, the annals of crime are positively awash with investigations that went awry precisely because of a police failure to recognize the true significance of seemingly insignificant evidence. Hence I’m by no means convinced that the police made the connection between Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis’s Wideawake Man. Given that the press seems to have overlooked it, I think it highly likely that the police did too.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

this sighting would reasonably have been interpreted by the police as a very possible sighting of the Ripper

I agree, but it’s worth bearing in mind that given the relatively large number of “suspicious” individuals reported in the area, the significance of the Wideawake loiterer could easily have been overlooked. Lewis herself was far more perturbed by the man standing at the corner of Dorset Street outside the Britannia pub, as she took him to have been the same individual who accosted her and a female companion on the Wednesday prior to the murder. The emphasis placed on this individual could easily have overshadowed any potential significance the wideawake man may have had to the investigation, and with Blotchy reported as the last man seen in kelly’s company, that significance would have been reduced even further.

Garry just raised the crucial point that not even the press appeared to have made the connection, despite their demonstrated eagerness exhibited elsewhere to engage with the subject of eyewitness sightings and descriptions. Even the one press article (from the Washington Evening Star) that did drop the veiled hint that the police should consider Hutchinson a viable suspect never alluded to this connection.

Overall, I consider it marginally more likely that the Hutch-wideawake connection was never observed. There’s no evidence that the police or press ever picked up on it, and Dew’s observations make clear that he, at least, was unaware of any connection. These factors may not be decisive in isolation from each other, but tend to make a more compelling case for the non-connection when added together. In my view, at least.

“There is every chance that the wideawake man could have stopped quite briefly on his way through Dorset Street, and if he did it opposite Miller´s Court, it would not be a very odd thing to do to throw a glance in that direction. And if this happened as Lewis passed by, well, then the behaviour of wideawake man may not at all have equalled what Hutch spoke of.”

I accept the observation that we only have Hutchinson’s word for it that he waited there for as long as he claimed. On the other hand, it should be clear from Lewis’ evidence that the lurker was both solitary and stationary, and that he was apparently watching or waiting for someone. All three correspond to Hutchinson’s own claims with regard to his actions and movements. It’s still too much of a “stretch”, even if we accept the “different day” hypothesis. I’m also doubtful in the extreme that Dew should have avoided any mention of Lewis if he knew of this interesting correlation of detail between the two accounts.

“Likewise, we know that Hutchinson changed details when speaking to the press - but have a look at the almighty number of details that stayed unchanged! Maybe such a thing would call for a renewed set of questions from thepolice - but it would certainly not render him a dismissal!”

But we know that the police were already attaching a “very reduced importance” by the 13th November, and very importantly, we know why. The reasons were outlined in the Echo article. It doesn’t require a great deal for a “very reduced importance” to be downgraded further to an outright “dismissal”, and the heavily embellished and contradictory press claims could easily have provided the catalyst for this. It was as though the “authorities” were looking for excuses to consign the account to the dustbin, and it appears that his press offerings may have achieved this. For another instance of not-so-coincidental timing, consider that the The Star’s revelation that the account was “now discredited” came a single day after Hutchinson’s “fuller” account appeared in the newspapers.

So I’m afraid I continue to disagree very strongly that “Hutch´s dismissal would have taken a lot more than this”.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it’s worth bearing in mind that given the relatively large number of “suspicious” individuals reported in the area, the significance of the Wideawake loiterer could easily have been overlooked."

There is reason to realize that there may have been an element of diluting involved, yes - but I do not think it would have stretched to overlook men standing around outside Miller´s Court, seemingly watching it, at a time when the murder may have been planned and perpetrated.

"Garry just raised the crucial point that not even the press appeared to have made the connection"

Exactly. And that is all-important when trying to understand what happened, the way I see it. It´s either a case of Hutch looking enough alike wideawake man to have been him, and placing himself in a situation where he seemingly corroborates Lewis´testimony - and still he is ignored, not only by the police but also by the investigative forces of the press. In other words, what you yourself and Garry regard as a very hot match for the Ripper, was completely and utterly overlooked by both police and press in spite of the inherent, very obvious qualities as a Ripper suspect. It was a top priority crime, engaging hundreds of coppers and swarms of journalists, all looking for the slightest pointer that could lead them to the Rippers doorstep - and yet, they ALL failed to see this ...?
Or, if you are wrong, we are dealing with a situation where the police did not make the connection and the press did not sniff it up for the very simple reason that there WAS no connection. This could owe to, for example, a total mismatch inbetween Lewis´ loiterer and Hutchinson, or to - as I have stated numerous times - something popping up that effectively closed that particular alley of investigation down.

"Dew’s observations make clear that he, at least, was unaware of any connection"

Exactly once again, Ben! And why was Dew not aware of any connection? That would depend on who you ask. Because the joint forces of the police and the press were unable to put two and two together - that´s your bid. But think a little bit further, Ben: does the fact that Dew does not mention the connection mean that it would not have been made if the circumstances called for it at the time? OR DOES IT SIMPLY MEAN THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A CONNECTION WERE NEVER REALLY THERE? If Dew KNEW that Hutch and Lewis´loiterer did not match by far, then why would he speak of a connection? If it had been proven that Hutchinson was not in Dorset Street on the night in question, then why would he speak of a connection? Think about it, Ben - if Walter Dew was of the meaning that Hutchinson was an honest witness - and the implications are that he was of that exact meaning - then why would he suggest that he was wrong on the dates, UNLESS HE HAD GOOD REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THIS WAS THE CASE? Unless, that is, the implications were that Hutchinson was NOT the man Lewis testified to?
Nota bene, Walter Dew does not say that Hutchinson was a publicity seeker, he does not speak of a story made up - he takes Hutchinsons testimony at face value, but he is aware that Hutchinsons story was in some manner discredited at the time; therefore he offers the possibility that Hutch had mixed the dates up.
Summing up, Walter Dew does not in any fashion support a wiew that Hutch was a liar or a conscioius time-waster, and he certainly does not strengthen your suggestion of a non-connection either. He points not to a glaringly obvious connection being overlooked, but instead to that connection never being a viable option.

"it should be clear from Lewis’ evidence that the lurker was both solitary and stationary, and that he was apparently watching or waiting for someone"

It IS clear, Ben. What is NOT clear, though, is that he stood there for fortifive minutes, as Hutch claimed to have done. The mistake we may be doing here is to state that Lewis´man did the exact same thing as Hutchinson did, because we cannot possibly know this. A twenty-second stop in a doorway, combined with a glance up the court on the other side of the street does not equal a witnessed-about forty-five minutes of careful watching, does it? For all we know, that may have been all Lewis loiterer did. He may have left Dorset Street the moment she turned the corner.

"It HAS to have been Hutch" is a very dangerous conclusion to draw, all things considered. Not least since we KNOW that Hutchinson was dropped. The implication is that neither police nor press actually believed that he was there - and if you really need Walter Dew to strengthen a suggestion, then how about this one?

"we know that the police were already attaching a “very reduced importance” by the 13th November, and very importantly, we know why."

Not that again, please, Ben. YOU may think that WE know, but let me assure you that WE do nothing of the kind. Please remember that you admitted in an earlier post that my suggestion of something turning up that could have discarded Hutchinson could have something going for it, although you favoured your own version! Let´s not be dogmatic about things that we cannot be dogmatic about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"If, for example, investigators regarded Sarah as a somewhat less than upstanding character, they might have been disinclined to accord her story too much in the way of credibility."

But we know, Garry, that the police believed that Lewis´testimony qualified her for the inquest. I really do not think we can get a much better grading of how the police looked upon it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“There is reason to realize that there may have been an element of diluting involved, yes - but I do not think it would have stretched to overlook men standing around outside Miller´s Court”

Not overlooked entirely, Fish, just bypassed in terms of significance, and as Garry has already pointed out, it isn’t remotely unusual in high profile investigations for such details to be given scant attention, even when we’re dealing with comparatively more enlightened and sophisticated times in terms of policing.

“Exactly. And that is all-important when trying to understand what happened, the way I see it. It´s either a case of Hutch looking enough alike wideawake man to have been him, and placing himself in a situation where he seemingly corroborates Lewis´testimony - and still he is ignored, not only by the police but also by the investigative forces of the press.”

Yes, that would be the solution which tallies the most with the extant evidence, and the obvious reality outlined by Garry concerning the all-too-human propensity to overlook important details, especially when deluged with “leads” that need pursuing. It would mean that Hutchinson was erroneously dismissed as a publicity-seeker because such people were – and still are – frequently the bane of any high profile police investigation, and it was simply easier to consign him to that category. A recognition that the Lewis and Hutchinson accounts tallied in that key particular would have given them reason to reassess that view, and what few indicators exist would suggest that this connection was never made, even by the discerning folk at the Evening Star, who believed that Hutchinson himself ought to be considered a suspect on account of his implausible statement.

Tellingly, even they failed to arrive at that “Eureka” moment as far as Lewis’ evidence was concerned.

The “total mismatch” hypothesis doesn’t cut it for me at all. Unlike the above proposal, this is far too predicated on the extraordinary, inexplicable coincidence of two individuals standing in an exposed location in very poor weather conditions at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly’s murder, engaging in ostensibly the same activity of watching and waiting for someone. Even if we accept the vastly implausible “different day” angle, the coincidence is still a stretch.

“OR DOES IT SIMPLY MEAN THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A CONNECTION WERE NEVER REALLY THERE? If Dew KNEW that Hutch and Lewis´loiterer did not match by far,”

No, I don’t consider this a reasonable suggestion at all. In this scenario, I would at least have expected Dew to allude to this bizarre coincidence of two individuals engaging in identical activity but still being different people. Something along the lines that “We initially believed him because of his compatibility with another witness account, until we found out that...pleuh”. Crucially, he doesn’t appear to have known the reasons for Hutchinson dropping off the map. His opinion that Hutchinson was an honest bloke who got the day wrong constitutes just that: an opinion, thus providing another very good reason, in my view, to avoid the temptation to conjure up the existence of some big, unrecorded “something” that ruled Hutchinson out either as Lewis’ loiterer or the murderer.

The salient observation, again, is that the police were only in a position to opine and speculate in the absence of concrete proof.

We can get rid of the idea, straight away, that any “proof” had been procured to the effect that Hutchinson was not in Dorset Street on the night in question. We know from the Echo article that this was most emphatically not the case, otherwise they would have cited this as a reason for attaching “very reduced importance” to his account, and not all the other reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with proof that he wasn’t there. Again, if proof had been procured, both the Echo and Walter Dew would not have confined themselves to opinions only.

I never claimed or intimated that Dew was personally of the opinion that Hutchinson was a time-waster or a liar. He would obviously aware that the account had been discredited, and therefore speculated as to why. He clearly was not in the “Know”. But I disagree very strongly with the idea that he knew of the existence of a possible connection with another witness (which he inexplicably failed to mention) and that it had been dismissed. I think it far more likely that he was simply unaware that the connection had ever been inferred – probably because it hasn’t. Once again, the latter explanation is a lot less “fill-in-the-blanks”.

“A twenty-second stop in a doorway, combined with a glance up the court on the other side of the street does not equal a witnessed-about forty-five minutes of careful watching, does it?”

The wideawake man would have been visible from the time Lewis emerged onto Dorset Street from Commercial Street until the moment she entered the interconnecting passage to Miller’s Court. This would have taken roughly 20 seconds, I imagine, and at no point was the individual recorded as being anything other than stationary and solitary. She even made the distinction between the unmoving wideawake man and another couple who “passed along”. But even if this individual did decide, bizarrely, to stop for 20 seconds to peer into a court entrance, it still constitutes a striking coincidence with the actions and movements claimed by Hutchinson at that very time.

"It HAS to have been Hutch" is a very dangerous conclusion to draw, all things considered.”

I have considered “all things”, and although “has to me” implies a level of certainty that none of us is entitled to, I’d say the man was very probably Hutchinson. All other explanations fail to account for the coincidence above referred to, or make unsuccessful (IMO) attempts to downplay that coincidence. I might agree with your “The implication is that neither police nor press actually believed that he was there”, but I’m supremely confident that this had nothing to do with Hutchinson being “a lean, tall guy”!

“YOU may think that WE know, but let me assure you that WE do nothing of the kind. Please remember that you admitted in an earlier post that my suggestion of something turning up that could have discarded Hutchinson”

Well, we certainly know some of the reasons why the police had come to attach a “very reduced importance” to Hutchinson’s account because they are provided immediately afterwards. In that respect, at least, there is no mystery, and it is certainly not “my own version”. We were discussing the various catalysts that might have fuelled this doubt in the first place, and you made the sensible suggestion that Hutchinson may have made a few ill-guarded comments to the police when on his walkabout.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

"If, for example, investigators regarded Sarah as a somewhat less than upstanding character, they might have been disinclined to accord her story too much in the way of credibility."

But we know, Garry, that the police believed that Lewis´testimony qualified her for the inquest. I really do not think we can get a much better grading of how the police looked upon it.

A most interesting point, Fish, and one that to my mind is deserving of deeper exploration. To begin with, jurisdiction over inquest proceedings lay not with the police but with the coroner, and it was (and still is) the task of the police to provide the coroner with details of any witness who might provide material information before the court. The decision, therefore, as to who did and who did not appear before the jury lay entirely with the coroner. As such, the fact that Sarah Lewis was called to give evidence should in no way be taken as an indication as to her perceived degree of importance from a police perspective. We know, for example, that Carrie Maxwell was called before the inquest despite the reality that her account was viewed with some scepticism by investigators.

When conducting research for my book prior to the advent of the internet and the extensive indexing of Ripper-related archives, I discovered in the 1881 census returns a fifteen-year-old Sarah Lewis who resided with a sister and their parents at an address in Little Pearl Street. If, as seems likely, this was the Sarah Lewis, we may make a number of deductions. First: Sarah was twenty-two in 1888 and was almost certainly unmarried. This, of course, directly contradicts her claim that she had had a disagreement with her husband on the night in question. Secondly: since the Great/Little Pearl Streets area has been described as ‘particularly rough’, it may be inferred that Sarah was more Mary Kelly than Mary Poppins. And thirdly: her claimed occupation of ‘laundress’ combined with her early morning wanderings suggest that she was a prostitute.

Assuming all of this to be true, we may have an answer as to why the police seemingly failed to accord her narrative the importance it most surely deserved. To this end, compare the way in which investigators treated Mary Cox and Joseph Lawende. Cox viewed Blotchy at close quarters and at a time that was critical in terms of Dr Bond’s projected 1:00am to 2:00am time of death. This sighting was even more salient owing to the fact that several witnesses overheard Kelly singing until 1:00am. Despite this self-evident reality, however, Mary Ann Cox and her description of Kelly’s blotchy-faced drinking cohort were all but brushed aside by the police. Joseph Lawende, on the other hand, was given the Hollywood treatment by investigators. Not only was he sequestered, but part of his inquest evidence was also withheld ‘in the interests of justice’. Yet Lawende sighted Eddowes’ supposed slayer from the other side of the street and from the rear. He also doubted that he would recognize the man again. So how did Lawende come to be seen as a more important witness than Cox?

To my mind there is but one explanation for this discrepancy: social status. Lawende, as the recently discovered photograph bears testimony, was clearly a man of some refinement. He was also a family man, in full employment, and seems to have been a moderate drinker. Mary Ann Cox, conversely, was a common prostitute, a slum-dweller, and almost certainly an alcoholic – an unholy combination that certainly appears to have exerted a negative influence on police thinking. And if this was true of Mary Cox, there is little reason to suppose that Sarah Lewis might have been an exception. In other words, the value of Sarah’s statement was judged not on its own merit, but rather upon the character of the person who supplied it.

As I stated earlier, Fish, you have raised a most interesting issue. And if you are at all sceptical as to the preceding interpretation, I would encourage you to research some of the policing scandals of the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties that revealed similar investigative deficiencies. Be warned, however, that the documented interrogations of alleged rape victims are not for the squeamish.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it isn’t remotely unusual in high profile investigations for such details to be given scant attention, even when we’re dealing with comparatively more enlightened and sophisticated times in terms of policing."

Once you go looking for things, Ben, you may certainly find the oddest items where you least expect them. But the fact remains that it would be odd in the extreme if the connection had not been made, if the room was there for it - but I don´t think it was. And that, I suspect, is as far as we are going to get on that point.

"It would mean that Hutchinson was erroneously dismissed as a publicity-seeker because such people were – and still are – frequently the bane of any high profile police investigation"

Well, that very much belongs to the kind of suggestion that qualifies for the kind of answer I just gave. And there were certainly oddballs around a plenty, we all know that. But the character of the testimony given by Lewis earned her a place at the inquest, and we know that Abberline put faith in Hutchinson from the outset. To me, thjat pretty much ensures that a viable connection would not have been missed by all the men involved in the hunt. And that, I suspect, is as far as we are gonna come on that point.

"The “total mismatch” hypothesis doesn’t cut it for me at all. Unlike the above proposal, this is far too predicated on the extraordinary, inexplicable coincidence of two individuals standing in an exposed location in very poor weather conditions at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly’s murder, engaging in ostensibly the same activity of watching and waiting for someone."

Like I said, let´s not make the mistake of believing that wideawake and Hutchinson BOTH stood around for 45 minutes! We simply cannot know what actions wideawake took before and after Lewis´sighting, just as we do not know how much of an observer he was of Miller´s court. Lewis states that he looked up the court as if watching it, but the traditional interpretation of who he was and what he did rests very much on his identification with Hutch, does it not? If he was NOT Hutchinson, then all we have is a man that threw a glance in direction of the court as Lewis passed by. Plus we have the very possible suggestion that Lewis had done a little bit of interpreting herself after the incident, aware that she was that a woman was killed à la the Ripper in that very court!
The "total mismatch" hypothesis actually has a lot going for it, since it would help explaining why Hutch was not taken seriously, and it would explain Dew´s stance.

"In this scenario, I would at least have expected Dew to allude to this bizarre coincidence of two individuals engaging in identical activity but still being different people. Something along the lines that “We initially believed him because of his compatibility with another witness account, until we found out that...pleuh”. "

Sorry, Ben, but we cannot possibly know why Dew chose not to mention why Hutch was left out in the end. It proves nothing, either way. But I think that since Dew does not paint Hutch out as a liar or a time-waster, we are looking at a trivial matter like a mismatch or something rather unsensational, like a mistaken date. Let´s for example ponder the fact that Hutch said that he had returned from Romford. This is something the police would reasonably try to verify. And if that quest ended in somebody down in Romford telling them that yes, he was down here, but no, that was the day before, then there you are.

"Crucially, he doesn’t appear to have known the reasons for Hutchinson dropping off the map."

Hard to tell, I´d say. If the Romford scenario that I suggested applies, then he may well have known about it, and he may have concluded that old George would probably have been wrong about the dates.

"We can get rid of the idea, straight away, that any “proof” had been procured to the effect that Hutchinson was not in Dorset Street on the night in question. We know from the Echo article that this was most emphatically not the case, otherwise they would have cited this as a reason for attaching “very reduced importance” to his account"

No. Once again, we cannot know that. The Echo states ”From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder", and I´m afraid that you are jumping the gun very much when you say that this must mean that the explanation to Hutchinsons dismissal was in print in the statement from the beginning. Once again, apply the Romford testimony suggestion, and you end up with a situation where the police realized that they may need to apply "very reduced importance" to it. They may have found themselves in a situation where Hutch said one thing and a Romford witness the other, and they may have been of the meaning that the latter stood a lot better chance of being correct. After having checked it out, and finding that Hutch WAS indeed wrong, it would have been time for the Star to dismiss him totally. Such a scenario - and dozens of other, likewise plausible scenarios - would tally extremely well with what we´we got.

"But even if this individual did decide, bizarrely, to stop for 20 seconds to peer into a court entrance, it still constitutes a striking coincidence with the actions and movements claimed by Hutchinson at that very time."

It does, Ben. Which is why the police would have spotted it instantly, as would the press. It is a glaringly obvious thing, and it would never have gone amiss - were there not reasons for it. As for wideawake, I have already touched on his role.

"I might agree with your “The implication is that neither police nor press actually believed that he was there”, but I’m supremely confident that this had nothing to do with Hutchinson being “a lean, tall guy”!"

I could not say either way, since I readily admit that I have no description of Hutchinson. The only small pointer we have, seems to tell us that he was NOT a shortish guy, since he stooped down to look Astrakhan in the face. That points more to a tall man than to a short, as has been noted by most in the past.
Any way, I am not "supremely confident" about anything about Hutchinsons looks, so it would seem you have the upper hand here.

"Well, we certainly know some of the reasons why the police had come to attach a “very reduced importance” to Hutchinson’s account because they are provided immediately afterwards."

I answered this in my former post. There is no "we" in this issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"To begin with, jurisdiction over inquest proceedings lay not with the police but with the coroner, and it was (and still is) the task of the police to provide the coroner with details of any witness who might provide material information before the court. The decision, therefore, as to who did and who did not appear before the jury lay entirely with the coroner. As such, the fact that Sarah Lewis was called to give evidence should in no way be taken as an indication as to her perceived degree of importance from a police perspective. We know, for example, that Carrie Maxwell was called before the inquest despite the reality that her account was viewed with some scepticism by investigators."

Technically correct, of course. Just as it would be technically correct to point out that the form and shape that the police clad Lewis wordings in, helped the coroner to make his call.

"In other words, the value of Sarah’s statement was judged not on its own merit, but rather upon the character of the person who supplied it."

That would have been a factor that was weighed in, I fully agree with that. And thanks for the directions to sources that underbuild your arguments, Garry. I have actually read up on numerous things related to the social factors involved in things like these, but a little more can never hurt, can it?

The seemingly crucial point here, however, would be to point out that it would seem that Lewis´testimony was judged so valuable IN SPITE of the fact that she was not court-related or lady Astor´s closest friend, that she still made it to the inquest. It we make the conscious choice of looking at it from this angle, we get a different story.

We may also reflect somewhat about the fact that two probably honest labourers, Best and Gardner, were left out of the inquest proceedings in Stride´s case, whereas the "charwoman" Lane and a number of rowdy gentlemen from the IWMEC were allowed. Social implications aside, there was a job that needed to be done as best as it could. In the Kelly case, that would have meant that Lewis was admitted because she was deemed dependable after having been scrutinized by the police.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“But the fact remains that it would be odd in the extreme if the connection had not been made”

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. Abberline put his faith in Hutchinson “at” the outset, as distinct from “from” it, but we now know how incredibly short-lived this was.

As Garry has suggested, there was no real incentive to cross-reference his already dismissed account with details that had emerged from the inquest, especially if there were already question marks over Lewis’ credibility and character (see Garry's post above). If, however, they were still attaching some importance to Lewis’ account, and were not overly swayed by Bond’s estimation of the time of death (which is a very real possibility), it is likely that the focus was sustained on the Bethnal Green Botherer spotted at the corner of Dorset Street, who Lewis clearly made out to be the more “suspicious” of the two.

But I agree that this as far as we’re likely to progress with this one.

“Like I said, let´s not make the mistake of believing that wideawake and Hutchinson BOTH stood around for 45 minutes!”

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. Whatever the wideawake man was doing immediately before and after Lewis had him in her sights does not enervate the reality that Hutchinson claimed to have been doing precisely what Lewis observed the wideawake man to have been doing at the same time and the same location, and that’s still too much of a coincidence, as is the timing, which is why I’m compelled to conclude that he WAS the man in question, and came forward as soon as he realised he’d been seen. The wideawake man was solitary, stationary and apparently preoccupied with the court, not a “passer-by” throwing a glance in that direction.

“The "total mismatch" hypothesis actually has a lot going for it, since it would help explaining why Hutch was not taken seriously, and it would explain Dew´s stance.”

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. If something had emerged to prove that Hutchinson was elsewhere on the night in question, the Echo would have a) said so explicitly, and b) reported that the authorities had utterly dismissed the account, not just attached a “very reduced importance” to it.

Again, the article in question provided several clear reasons WHY the account had suffered a diminished importance, and they had nothing to do with all the unnecessary fill-in-the-blank explanations that require the positing of imaginary evidence. And please, the “Romford testimony suggestion”? 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.

We know there wasn’t a “Romford testimony suggestion” because, if there was one, both the Echo article and Dew would have been able to dismiss Hutchinson for definite. There was absolutely no need for the Echo to have reported other, lesser reasons (Hutchinson’s delay, lack of other Astrakhan types, nobody else verifying his account etc) for dismissing Hutchinson when there were far more compelling ones, such as a mysterious “alibi”. The fact that the latter isn’t mentioned is the best indicator we could possibly hope for that nothing of the kind ever emerged.

The fact that they were expressing opinion only is a compelling indicator that they didn’t know the truth of the matter.

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

Nothing can be proved, of course, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as it stands I utterly reject the “Romford alibi” because not only is there no scrap of evidence to support the contention that anything vaguely like this occurred, there are strong and compelling indications against it

“It does, Ben. Which is why the police would have spotted it instantly, as would the press. It is a glaringly obvious thing, and it would never have gone amiss”

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, but as I’ve explained, even in that scenario, Hutchinson doesn’t get “ruled out”.

“The only small pointer we have, seems to tell us that he was NOT a shortish guy, since he stooped down to look Astrakhan in the face.”

No.

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.

“That points more to a tall man than to a short, as has been noted by most in the past.”

No. Very few people have “noted” this. Certainly not “most”. Right or wrong, the view that Hutchinson was the wideawake man has enjoyed far more widespread and mainstream acceptance.

Best regards,
Ben

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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...