Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

"Whats your take on Lewis's black bag man? You think there is any chance he's the one? According to lewis he was around alot talking to various women and was creepy enough to scare her and her friend. She said the night of the murder she saw him again on the corner of Dorsett. maybe he met up with MK at some point previous and/or that night."

I think he correponds far too well with the generic description of a killer with a Gladstone bag and a high hat to keep me happy, Abby. But sure, if he was what Lewis said he was, he belongs to the picture. And he is around at the same stage as Wideawake is around - or so Lewis said.
But tall tales were also around in the aftermath of the Kelly deed. Sugden describes how a journalist who arrived at the murder site after Kelly had been discovered, only to have half a dozen women telling him that they had been around to hear somebody cry "Murder" in the middle of the night - apparently they had picked up on Lewis´and Praters story, and found it colourful enough to tell it once again, starring themselves.

Actually, it is easier to believe in a man that Lewis could not describe, than in one that is described in very vivid detail, at least as long as that detail has something of an evil fairytale to it. One must, of course, ponder that IF Lewis was telling porkies about the man with the bag, she could well have been telling porkies about Wideawake´s existence too. But funnily, the lacking description - later becoming a very vague one - saves the day for me in that instance.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Thanks for the response. Seems like there was alot of dastardly villains around that night.

Actually, it is easier to believe in a man that Lewis could not describe, than in one that is described in very vivid detail, at least as long as that detail has something of an evil fairytale to it

Then, that being said, you beleive that GH's A-man is probably more fiction than fact too?

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"that being said, you beleive that GH's A-man is probably more fiction than fact too?"

Yes. And no, not necessarily.

Here´s the thing: I lean more and more towards George Hutchinson not being identical with Wideawake man - I am everything but sure that he was even in Dorset Street on the night. We know that his story was not believed by the police, but we do not know why.

We cannot see any interest at all in George Hutchinson on behalf of the police after they had let him go. He was thus reasonably cleared from suspion attaching to the crime itself, the way I see it.

In his memoirs, Walter Dew suggests that Hutchinson was wrong on the day he was in Dorset Street. To me, this would help immensely in explaining what happened - if it could be substantiated that George Hutchinson was one day off, and if the police could ascertain or at least come close to ascertaining this, then we would have a very trivial story.
We would have a very good explanation to why Hutchinson did not turn from witness to suspect - because he was never even there.
We would have a very unsexy story, making it easy to see why the papers did not expand on it.
We would even get a neat explanation to why Kelly, who had been very much drunk and obviously prepared to drink more at midnight, suddenly was only a bit spreeish two hours later - because it was NOT two hours later, it was 22 hours before!

And how does my yes/no suggestion in answer to your question apply?

Well, we know that Dew does not say that it was positively proven that George Hutchinson was one day off - he only suggests that this may have been the case. And we know that George William Topping Hutchinson had told his son Reg about having met a man giving the impression of being like lord Randolph Churchill with Mary Kelly on the night she died. So evidently, if George William Topping Hutchinson was identical with George Hutchinson the witness - and I am totally confident that he was - then he held on to his claim of having met a very posh man in Dorset Street on the murder night. The conclusion that this man was Astrakhan man becomes unescapable.

So yes, placing Astrakhan man in Dorset Street on the murder night was bogus, it would seem. But placing him there on the night before was perhaps not bogus at all! He may well have existed - but in that case, it seems he was unrelated to the murder.

And if there was a disagreement inbetween Hutchinson and the police as to what night he was there, then Hutchinson may have felt less inclined to speak to all and sundry about his meeting with "Jack the Ripper". He may have settled for only disclosing it within a circle of very close friends and family, perhaps avoiding to add that the police never believed him.

Looking upon it like this, I think the bits and pieces fit together eminently. I even believe that I may persuade Richard, who has always spoken up for believing in Hutchinson, identifying him with Topping and looking upon him as a family man who would not lie to the police, much less kill. Maybe this is the simple solution to it all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here´s a question for all of you who are better aquainted with the ways of the unfortunates in Britain.

Here in Sweden, back in the early 1900:s, the prostitutes who had rooms and apartments of their own, used a signal system to let their customers know whether they were open for business or not. Typically, they would put a light in the window when the coast was clear, and put it out when it was not.

I imagine other signals may have come into use too - curtains open or closed, etc.

Did this apply in Britain too? Does anybody know?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Thimble Tapping

Fish,

Thimbles were used by Victorian prostitutes who use to tap on window sills, windows, door etc to signal their prescence.

And low, what was found on or around Stride and Eddowes?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Hi Monty!

Thanks for that; thimbles, no less!

But what I was asking for, was more some sort of signal system belonging to the unfortunates who had rooms of their own, and with the purpose to show men out in the street that they were open for business. A system that did not alert people to the presence of unfortunates in the street, but instead employed by prostitutes living inside a room or apartment, ready to service clients coming from the outside.
Do you know something of this?

The best, Monty!
Fisherman

[harry]

Hi Fish,
A mate and I had a signal if we were going to meet at a particular place.
I would say,"If I am there first I will put my hat on the wall,if you are there first you take it off"

[Rubyretro]

Fish :
I'm not going to continue with the speculation on why Hutch was thrown out of the enquiry -we'll never know. I think that it's unlikely that he made a genuine mistake on the day though -he would presumably he know when he went to Romford and came back. So if he wasn't there, then I think that he lied (I don't think that he lied though -because I do think that he was 'wideawake'). I also think that it might be hard for the Police to prove where he was conclusively anyhow, with no street/security cameras.

Still, I don't believe for one second that A Man existed (at least, that night in Whitechapel), although Dave has shown that there were toffs in the area. I don't see how Hutch could have taken in all those details in the dark -and looking at his feet, jewellery and face at the same time. Why such a man would leave his coat unbuttoned on a cold night..and the coat would surely mask the watch ( which would be on a waistcoat, under a jacket , under the coat.)..is unbelievable. And why would he go to poor prostitute's room in a place like Miller's Court with that jewellery anyway ? -especially with Hutch breathing down his neck (close enough to hear the conversation). .
Try looking at contemporary photos of Dorset street and the entrance to Miller's Court, and imagine A Man there -happy to go down that dark little passage.
How would Hutch have the night vision to see the red colours ? Surely this Toff wouldn't live in a vacuum either -he'd have tradesmen, a servant, a job, if not a family...but no one recognized his description, although the watch and the tiepin in tandem made him very identifiable. He'd also be moving, standing side on, standing with his back to Hutch sometimes -not standing full on , allowing himself to be clocked by a labourer. The 'jewish villain' ("very surely looking"),
and the red handkerchief offered to Mary, would appear to be made up to link this 'personage' with the idea of JtR that the public had.

No wonder that Abberline quickly changed his mind about the Statement (one can imagine the comments that his collegues and superiors might have made, after considering it).

I no longer believe that Hutch even met Mary on the street that night -I used to believe that part at least. Consider, his description of her as being a 'bit spreeish' , when asked if she was drunk. We know from other witnesses that she WAS drunk -and I'd believe Hutch more if he said "she seemed sober enough to me" or "I didn't notice'. Instead he hedged his bets and tried to avoid putting his foot in it. I don't think that he'd want to be seen in public with a woman that he was planning to murder either.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"A mate and I had a signal if we were going to meet at a particular place.
I would say,"If I am there first I will put my hat on the wall,if you are there first you take it off""

Ha! Great stuff, Harry! Hats off to you ... No, wait a minute here ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby!

I´m caught up in some research here for the moment, so I must refrain from commenting on your post. Interesting to see, though, that you are beginning to question Hutch in another fashion!

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

In his memoirs, Walter Dew suggests that Hutchinson was wrong on the day he was in Dorset Street. To me, this would help immensely in explaining what happened …

So yes, placing Astrakhan man in Dorset Street on the murder night was bogus, it would seem. But placing him there on the night before was perhaps not bogus at all! He may well have existed - but in that case, it seems he was unrelated to the murder.

And we know that George William Topping Hutchinson had told his son Reg about having met a man giving the impression of being like lord Randolph Churchill with Mary Kelly on the night she died. So evidently, if George William Topping Hutchinson was identical with George Hutchinson the witness - and I am totally confident that he was - then he held on to his claim of having met a very posh man in Dorset Street on the murder night.

So, Fish, Hutchinson was Toppy and he simply confused the night on which he sighted the Churchill lookalike? Perhaps this memory impairment also explains how he managed to forget that he was a plumber when submitting his police statement.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

So, Fish, Hutchinson was Toppy and he simply confused the night on which he sighted the Churchill lookalike? Perhaps this memory impairment also explains how he managed to forget that he was a plumber when submitting his police statement.

Garry,

Cut the crap. We've gone over the plumber thing ad nauseum. You are full of BS. It gets sickening to have to read that kind of dig at someone.
Fisherman has been nothing but sensible, and when he gives a suggestion, you throw the plumber nonsense in. Grow up.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

"that being said, you beleive that GH's A-man is probably more fiction than fact too?"

Yes. And no, not necessarily.

Here´s the thing: I lean more and more towards George Hutchinson not being identical with Wideawake man - I am everything but sure that he was even in Dorset Street on the night. We know that his story was not believed by the police, but we do not know why.

We cannot see any interest at all in George Hutchinson on behalf of the police after they had let him go. He was thus reasonably cleared from suspion attaching to the crime itself, the way I see it.

In his memoirs, Walter Dew suggests that Hutchinson was wrong on the day he was in Dorset Street. To me, this would help immensely in explaining what happened - if it could be substantiated that George Hutchinson was one day off, and if the police could ascertain or at least come close to ascertaining this, then we would have a very trivial story.
We would have a very good explanation to why Hutchinson did not turn from witness to suspect - because he was never even there.
We would have a very unsexy story, making it easy to see why the papers did not expand on it.
We would even get a neat explanation to why Kelly, who had been very much drunk and obviously prepared to drink more at midnight, suddenly was only a bit spreeish two hours later - because it was NOT two hours later, it was 22 hours before!

And how does my yes/no suggestion in answer to your question apply?

Well, we know that Dew does not say that it was positively proven that George Hutchinson was one day off - he only suggests that this may have been the case. And we know that George William Topping Hutchinson had told his son Reg about having met a man giving the impression of being like lord Randolph Churchill with Mary Kelly on the night she died. So evidently, if George William Topping Hutchinson was identical with George Hutchinson the witness - and I am totally confident that he was - then he held on to his claim of having met a very posh man in Dorset Street on the murder night. The conclusion that this man was Astrakhan man becomes unescapable.

So yes, placing Astrakhan man in Dorset Street on the murder night was bogus, it would seem. But placing him there on the night before was perhaps not bogus at all! He may well have existed - but in that case, it seems he was unrelated to the murder.

And if there was a disagreement inbetween Hutchinson and the police as to what night he was there, then Hutchinson may have felt less inclined to speak to all and sundry about his meeting with "Jack the Ripper". He may have settled for only disclosing it within a circle of very close friends and family, perhaps avoiding to add that the police never believed him.

Looking upon it like this, I think the bits and pieces fit together eminently. I even believe that I may persuade Richard, who has always spoken up for believing in Hutchinson, identifying him with Topping and looking upon him as a family man who would not lie to the police, much less kill. Maybe this is the simple solution to it all.

The best,
Fisherman

HI Fish
Of course its possible-and thanks for laying out your entire idea on this.

And we know that George William Topping Hutchinson had told his son Reg about having met a man giving the impression of being like lord Randolph Churchill with Mary Kelly on the night she died. So evidently, if George William Topping Hutchinson was identical with George Hutchinson the witness - and I am totally confident that he was - then he held on to his claim of having met a very posh man in Dorset Street on the murder night. The conclusion that this man was Astrakhan man becomes unescapable.

But isn't also reasonable to assume if he was not mistaken about the night and lied about A-man to the police (for whatever reason-weather he was the killer sending police in the wrong direction or not the killer but just lying for the attention) that he not admit his lie later to family but continue with the lie-hence the Churchill A-man like description?

I guess I just have a real hard time beleiving that someone who had such a great memory of the details of A-man would then not have the memory to correctly remember what night it was.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Therefore, we do not know how long he stayed in place, nor do we know how "sinister" his "surveillance" should be regarded. Some or much of the tantalizing factor in it could owe to Lewis embellishing, since she full well knew what had happened to Kelly.

It’s worth remembering, though, that Lewis was far more preoccupied with the other man in her account – the man with the black bag – than she was with the wideawake loiterer, and as such, it doesn’t seem likely that she ever intended to place an unduly “sinister” slant on his movements and behaviour. She simply referred to his location and behaviour without adding any leading adjectives (such as “surly”!) as we might assume she would if her intention was to shift suspicion onto this individual. Instead, she clearly prioritizes the man with the back bag in the "suspicion" stakes.

To all,

It is incredibly unlikely that Hutchinson was wideawake were not the same individual. To suggest otherwise is to accept 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” hypothesis, the coincidence is still a stretch, given that the timing, location, and nature of the activity all remain the same in the two accounts. As Fisherman has already pointed out, Dew’s memoirs are littered with errors, and he was the only person to have offered the personal opinion that Hutchinson had confused the day of the encounter. And that’s all it was - a personal opinion, certainly not something that the police as a collective had come to believe, let alone prove.

It's also seems very likely to me, given Hutchinson's appearance at the police station so soon after the termination of the inquest, that it was Sarah Lewis' evidence that spurred him into action. The implication being that he recognised himself in her account and wanted to vindicate his presence near a crime with a superficially "innocent" explanation in order to pre-empt the possibility of being asked awkard questions before he had done so. Or else we accept another interesting, random "coincidence" of timing.

I agree with Abby Normal’s observation that a man with such an incredible eye for detail (oh, boy!) was very unlikely to confuse the ever so slightly significant detail that was the date of the encounter. And just what are the odds that his “date confusion” just happened to have resulted in him unwittingly placing himself the shoes of another person who was also standing outside the court entrance at 2:30 in the morning, and who was also seen to be “watching and waiting” for someone? In other words, on the day Hutchinson only thought he was doing all this, somebody actually was?

No. I'm afraid I can't possibly go with this as a credible explanation.

Without wishing to cause any offence or antagonism, it seems that one or two posters here are latching onto hard and fast conclusions, nailing colours firmly to masts and relying heavily on sources which they don’t appear to have known anything about previously. Dew’s tentative guess that Hutchinson confused the date (he said the same about Caroline Maxwell), for example, is something I brought up earlier in the thread. It’s seldom accorded much attention, and even less credence, and yet it’s now being used to bolster claims made in early 1990s “royal conspiracy” books involving possible sightings of Lord Randolph Churchill.

I just feel a bit more caution is urged here.

The most likely reason that Hutchinson did not become a suspect after being discarded as a witness is because he was never considered one. If he was never regarded in the capacity of a suspect, he cannot be dismissed as one. Alternatively, if he was suspected and the records of this suspicion have not survived for whatever reason, it’s very unlikely that the police were in a position to progress from mere “suspicion” to concrete proof of guilt or innocence.

We DO know some of the reasons the police had for doubting Hutchinson’s account because they were outlined specifically in the Echo article.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It is incredibly unlikely that Hutchinson was wideawake were not the same individual. "

It´s Freud, Ben, I´m telling you - them eight first words say it all ...

Garry, I´ll take Mikes advice and stay away from the plumbing business for now. But there is more to come in the near future. Stay tuned ...

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

You would go and quote a sentence I completely bollocksed up, Fish.

I meant:

"It is incredibly unlikely that Hutchinson and wideawake were not the same individual"

Please don't tell Caz...