Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

I fully accept your point that a distinction should be established between certainties and probabilites, and I hope I've been sufficiently cautious with my terminology. I would say, however, that it is very unlikely that the later embellishments were purely press generated, but this again belongs firmly in the realm of the "probable, as opposed to the "certain".

Best regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Im afraid Im going to have to disagree with you on your 'probability' comment however I do understand the logic behind it.

Its a heavy responsibility we carry, future research depends on it.

Suffice to say, though 'suspectin' leaves me cold, I must admit that it does draw me in from time to time.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Not an unreasonable suggestion, Fisherman, but whatever than "something" may have been, it can't have been any more compelling that the reasons cited in the Echo, or else it too would have been included; and it also couldn't have resulted in proof being secured. Yes, the account was downgraded two days later to become "discredited" but I strongly suspect that this was due to the publication of Hutchinson's press accounts which undermined his initial statement. "

I think, Ben, and I have stated it for ages, that whatever it was that sunk Battleship George, it would have been a trivial thing - no disclosure that he was a famous con artist or anything such - for then, just like you say, it would have made the headlines. No, what we´re looking at is, I believe, something that filled three premises:
1. something that effectively showed that the testimony given was at fault
2. something that at the same time allowed for letting him go, no suspicion attached
3. something that was trivial enough not to draw the interest of the papers

This, I think, is what we see in the affair on the whole. I know that you subscribe to the inherent differences inbetween police report and news articles being the vital factor, and I´m fine with that. My own stance, though, is that since the Echo tells us that something surfaced during the investigation into Hutch´s story, it would be very logical if that something found corroboration over the period of two days, resulting in the subsequent total discrediting of Hutchinson.

That is how I see things. And with that, just like Monty, I´m gone - I´m off to the badminton court to watch my son demolishing his antagonists. And good fun it is too!

Should Ruby or Garry - or for that matter you, Ben - have further things to add, I´ll see to it tomorrow.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I’m still firmly opinion that it was the press versions of his testimony that assisted in the downgrading of his testimony from “a very reduced importance” to the more damning “discredited” two days later. I favour this explanation chiefly because it neatly accounts for another of those “coincidences” of timing. Out came the press accounts on the 14th, and the very next day, the account was discredited. If the police harboured doubts before the 14th, the release of the press versions almost certainly cemented them, and it is this, I contend, that culminated in his discrediting. You’re welcome, of course, to your opposing view that it was have taken some other external factor, but as with the Packer and Violenia cases, it clearly wasn’t needed.

I wish your son the very best with his badminton! The “demolishing of his antagonists” is a skill he inherited from his mother, no doubt.

Cheers,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello all,
There are three alternatives, why Hutchinson may well have presented himself to the police on the monday evening.
1] He was kellys killer, and was paranoid about being seen, either by Sarah Lewis, or others, opposite Millers court at a time when medical opinion claimed a possible T.O.D, so by Inventing 'Astracan', he not only presented to the case a possible killer, but also a reason for being opposite the court.
2] He was NOT kellys killer , but knew that she had something of his in room 13, from that evening, ie, a hanky, its entirely possible that He was the one that gave Mary his hanky in Dorset street, and spent the hours between 2-6 in her room with Mjk very much alive, but as T.O.D, placed death. during that period, and leaving that article there ,and knowing he was not her killer, invented a man[ mayby the man he observed before he met kelly] out of pure fear.
Note.. who else but the owner of the hanky would know its colour in darkness?
Too far fetched?.then ...
3] Hutchinson told the whole truth , and invented nothing, and was indeed GWTH.
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

Hello all,
There are three alternatives, why Hutchinson may well have presented himself to the police on the monday evening.
1] He was kellys killer, and was paranoid about being seen, either by Sarah Lewis, or others, opposite Millers court at a time when medical opinion claimed a possible T.O.D, so by Inventing 'Astracan', he not only presented to the case a possible killer, but also a reason for being opposite the court.
2] He was NOT kellys killer , but knew that she had something of his in room 13, from that evening, ie, a hanky, its entirely possible that He was the one that gave Mary his hanky in Dorset street, and spent the hours between 2-6 in her room with Mjk very much alive, but as T.O.D, placed death. during that period, and leaving that article there ,and knowing he was not her killer, invented a man[ mayby the man he observed before he met kelly] out of pure fear.
Note.. who else but the owner of the hanky would know its colour in darkness?
Too far fetched?.then ...
3] Hutchinson told the whole truth , and invented nothing, and was indeed GWTH.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
There is also the alternative (albeit, of coures,far less likely) that GH was an accomplice who not only waited outside Millers court while MK was being murdered, but also later gave the police a bogus 'suspect' who was very different in appearance than the real killer.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Abby Normal,
I somehow do not see the 'watchout theory' as how would the 'lookout' warn the killer, danger approaching?
Its possible of course but?
Regards Richard,

[Garry Wroe]

YOU and Ben seem to believe that Abberline went over Hutch´s description over and over again, detail for detail, starting to doubt it. And on the 14:th, he continues it, by comparing each and every detail inbetween Police report and news articles, arriving at a confirmation that he had been correct in suspecting foul play. It is YOU that have produced that argument, not me. I consider it as wrong now as I did yesterday and the day before.

I don’t know what you’ve been smoking over the weekend, Fish, but I have never expressed any such opinion.

You state, together with Ben, that the article in the Echo is evidence that the police ruled Hutch out because of his description of Astrakhan man - that the inherent qualities of that description disqualified him.

And …

The Echo tells us that the statement Hutchinson had made was suddenly being seriously doubted. It does NOT tell us WHAT PART of the statement it was that was being doubted, however. It never says that the Astrakahan description was in doubt. It therefore applies that it could have been each and every part of it, or parts of it, or the statement on the whole that could have appeared suspicious. Now, how do you propose to have "followed the evidence" when you tell me that the wording could ONLY have meant the description of Astrakhan man?

Likewise, I have never claimed that Hutchinson was discredited as a consequence of his description of Astrakhan Man. Oddly enough, you posted the following concerning The Echo revelations on this very thread less than three weeks ago:-

...and this is what Garry Wroe had to say about it on a thread from last year:

"if factual, one can only surmise that it came about as a consequence of a police tip-off, and that Hutchinson had given himself away whilst searching the Whitechapel district with his police escort on the Monday evening. Then, as had been the case with Violenia before him, he was quietly dropped – viewed by the police as persona non grata."

So, a police tip-off is what Garry senses behind it, combined with Hutch giving himself away.

Since you appear to be somewhat confused, Fish, I would advise that, should you wish to make any future reference to my opinions, you do so by way of the quotation function. That way, you’ll avoid any allegation of deliberate misrepresentation.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Hi Garry!

I don´t smoke at all, as a matter of fact. But if for some reason I have inhaled substances that have made me make "deliberate misepresentations", then we may perhaps need to see the same doctor? I seem to remember that you scored three out of three the last time you dabbled in that business.

Since the two of you have been posting in tandem over these weeks and since you have made the strangest claims about things in tandem too, I was under the impression that I was not dealing with two persons but instead a smallish brigade of Hutchinsonians. And frankly, it has seemed to me that when an option could be chosen, speaking for Hutchinson being our Ripper, then that option was always chosen, regardless of the weight it carried in comparison to other options. So I´m slightly baffled now, but quite happy, if your contention is that it was not the description of Astrakhan man that made the police discard Hutchinson, and if you don´t think that Abberline reached that decision by scrutinizing the differences involved inbetween police report and news articles. Welcome to my world, Garry!

As for the quotation function, I´m quite fine without it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The “demolishing of his antagonists” is a skill he inherited from his mother, no doubt. "

Jesus, Ben - you read me like an open book!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

I do not know why or when any suspicions of Hutchinson's honesty surfaced,perhaps it was there from the time he entered the police station on the 12th and told his story.My suspicions began the first time I studied his statement,and began with the first element of that statement,the act of Mary Kelly supposedly approaching Hutchinson at 2am on Commercial Street trying to borrow a tanner.Of course the act of borrowing is not physically impossible,but in this case the timing of 2am appears a little abnormal.Here was a woman who had ran up arrears of rent over a longish period,had shown the appearance of drunkeness two hours previously,had enjoyed the company of at least one man the previous evening,but then suddenly at 2am that particular morning ,decides she has to borrow or earn money urgently.For what?
Then this man Hutchinson,who had walked to Romford and back a conservative distance of 24 miles,was so little affected in mind or body that he could observe and memorise, in minute detail in poor light,another person,and except for a period of 45 minutes,continue to walk the streets of Whitechapel the remainder of the night.
And there are people who believe that normal.
Hutchinson states the Victoria Home was shut.Maybe it was ,but that does not mean admittance could not be effected.Passes could be obtained,and I am sure a resident who had just walked from Romford would have been given a sympathetic hearing,even a fool who had,knowing he was going to Romford,failed to obtain a pass.
If people say I don't want to see any evidence of truth in Hutchinson,they are wrong.I do,but there is so little apparent,that I find it very hard.

[Fisherman]

Once you read the Echo from the 13:th in detail, it offers more and more insights that are useful to apply on the discussion we have been having on this thread. I would once again like to return to the suggestion that maybe the connection inbetween Lewis´ wideawake man and George Hutchinson was never made. In the Echo, it says, on his statement:

"Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses."

That means that the press, at the very least, adviced the exact same thing that I am advicing now, and for the very same and very obvious reason: once you add a new witness to an investigation, you compare his tstimony with what you already have. And it did not take the Echo 122 years to realize this. It was a matter of hours.

The best
Fisherman

[claire]

Harry, you raise a really valid point. Why would MJ suddenly decide she needed a little bit more money? Okay, it's possible she just decided she fancied a little bit more to drink, but it seems unlikely that, having already had a fair bit to drink (on Cox's testimony), she'd step out into the night in the hope she'd run across someone to ask. It seems to me, too, that she'd need to be very desperate for a drink (and it must only be a wish for drink that could drive her, since--as you point out--she was hardly concerned about her rent) to step out alone, at 2am, with the fear (as testified by various, including Barnett) she had of the killings.

I know this is a suspect thread, and I don't want to drift off that, but it occurs to me that the victimology is also pertinent here, since that can give us more in interpreting the veracity of GH's testimony. She doesn't seem to have a history of lone wandering, being usually in the company of others; she wasn't a drifting part time prostitute in the manner of the previous victims; beyond fancying a drink, she had no reason to be wandering outside at that hour. So, we really have to ask, don't we--is it likely she was out at all?

If she was, we need to accept this sequence of events. She finished off her song to Blotchy around 1am. She then went out, either at the same time he left or shortly thereafter, mooched around in search of money that she presumably had not had from Blotchy for the best part of an hour, before running into GH. Then, luck of luck for her, she ran into someone she knew- Mr A (she must have known him, to have enjoyed a jolly good laugh with him within seconds of him tapping her on the shoulder), and, with Mr A looking very like a punter, GH nevertheless followed them, watching them for three minutes at the entrance to the Court, before they went down to her room. Then, in full understanding that MJ was with a customer, he went down into the court to see if he could see them, and then cleared off--eventually.

Now, not that I'm a person prone to a volte face, but all this sounds very odd. Would a punter quite cheerfully (having given GH a stern look) allow himself to be observed (even if he wasn't intent on doing the woman harm)? And why would a killer imagine all was well in his world and go about his murderous business having been observed by a man keen enough on proceedings to follow him and MJ down the street?

Seems to me perfectly possible that a cool head and a strong coffee the morning after GH's remarkable statement would set alarm bells ringing in an averagely intelligent police officer's mind. Seems perfectly understandable that they would then doubt GH's statement. What still remains unclear to me is why they would then decide that there was nothing at all of interest in GH's behaviour at all, without checking out whether he could really have been there at all, and considering all possible roles he might have played.

I can certainly understand the argument that they found him a bit fishy, and discredited his statement on no more than common sense suspicion. But I still struggle with the idea that they decided he was a harmless nutter wasting police time without at least asking a few questions. So either they discovered something that confirmed their suspicion he was a fantasist, or they were unable to follow up at all...because he was no longer 'there.'

Sorry, probably not as succinct as it should have been

[Ben]

Sorry, probably not as succinct as it should have been

It was perfectly succinct, Claire, and I'm very much in agreement with most of the above. My comment yesterday about condensing posts and making them more succinct was directed exclusively at Fisherman, but even then I only meant it semi-jokingly. Apologies for any irritation caused.

But yes, I still think Hutchinson's statement was discredited as a result of "common sense suspicion" which was helped along by his press disclosures.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

All very true.