Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[harry]

Fisherman,
Again you are not addressing what I wrote.I said the paper has Hutchinson standing at the corner untill Kelly and companion entered the court.Where he was standing when Lewis entered the court,was outside Crossinghams.Where he was standing when Kelly spoke of the handkerchief was in Dorset Street,and in my estimation,no more than 30 feet distant.I have said how I came to those conclusions.At least four times in the previous postings you have falsely presented what I have written.I doubt it was genuine misinterpretation on your part,(or language problems)and you can take that last part anyway you like.

[Garry Wroe]

As well as the witnesses you have already cited, Roy, Major Smith was very much impressed by Lawende. Let us not forget either that it was Lawende and not Hutchinson who was called in to view Sadler. But it is Anderson and Swanson, I believe, who provide the greatest insight into the thoughts of the most senior investigators engaged on the case. Their shared conviction that an innominate Jew was the only witness who ever got a good look at the killer clearly rules out Hutchinson. Whether the witness in question was Lawende or Schwartz is immaterial, since neither man was accorded anything even approaching the quality and duration of Hutchinson’s alleged sighting of Astrakhan. Thus it can only be inferred that Hutchinson’s account was discredited. It must have been, otherwise he would have been regarded as by far the strongest eyewitness to have emerged from the case.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere,
It doesn't matter whether Hutch was a nightwatchman or not, and it doesn't even matter whether Hutch went to Romford or not (I tend to think that he did).

All I want to show you with my previous posts is

- A man living in the Victoria Home and doing a variety of casual jobs, with irregular hours, was not in prison and would perfectly well be able to come and go as he pleased -applying for that night pass- without drawing suspicion on himself. That is even if he was known at the Home, and even if this mysterious book of 'ticks' existed.

-As the murders took a very very short time to carry out, and they were all close to the Home, he would not be missed for the time they took.

-He would not need to spend time prowling

-He could be very well behaved outside of the time it took to commit the murders, and have good character references

-Even had the Police wanted to check him out (and he was a Witness not a Suspect) they would have been very limited in their means of doing it, if Hutchinson wished to keep some things hidden from them.

-What we might find 'dodgy' behaviour today, and ring alarm bells, may have taken many different forms and not even have gone down on record in 1888.

-The Ripper presumably didn't want to get caught (or else he would have been), and he didn't live in isolation in the overcrowded East End, therefore it is reasonable to assume that he took care to cover his tracks when carrying out a murder by manipulating other people to unwittingly collude with him (such as by establishing alibis should he need them). Once again it would be very hard for the Police to disprove (should they check), and especially if they thought that the man was innocent.

[Rubyretro]

ps, Lechmere -

I find it ludicrous to argue that Hutchinson would not have known the area around Berner Street.

The Victoria Home was practically on the corner of Commercial Street, and
Berner Street was just off the top of Commercial Road, and about a ten minute walk (I've just walked it !).

It is also very close to Leman Street via Hooper and Fairclough, and I seem to remember passing rows of old warehouses (could that have been in Ellen Street ?). I should say that there were probably lots of warehouses in the area -not so very far from the Docks and just the sort of places that Hutch may have looked for work.

Afterall, he professed to be willing to walk as far as Romford...

[The Good Michael]

How do we know Hutchinson wasn't a Jew and therefore, the Jewish witness? Since some people don't believe Topping and George were the same man, misguided thought they may be, they are then left with an unknown quantity. They then must accept the possibility that Hutchinson was Jewish.

Mike

[Hatchett]

Hi Garry,

There is a difference between people not mentioning someone in later years to having made a conscious decision to class him as completely unreliable. Packer was certatinly disbelieved and discredited as a witness. There are statements to substantiate that. There are no statements to substantiate the discrediting of Hutchinson.

The point I make is without that substantiation it is only supposition based on flimsy evidence.

There could be other reasons why the Police ceased to centre their investigations around Hutchinson. One obvious one is that the investigations got as far as they could but could go no further.

In the realms of supposition that I would venture is more plausible than anything else.

Best wishes.

[Rubyretro]

QUOTE=The Good Michael;164183]How do we know Hutchinson wasn't a Jew and therefore, the Jewish witness? Since some people don't believe Topping and George were the same man, misguided thought they may be, they are then left with an unknown quantity. They then must accept the possibility that Hutchinson was Jewish.

Mike[/QUOTE]

A perfectly good question, Mike !

short answer : we don't !
(would it make a difference ?)

He didn't have a Jewish name (but of course he may have had an alias, or a Gentile father).
His description, nor his sketched portrait don't show any typical Jewish
stereotypical traits..but of course stereotypes are just that.
I would say that it would be slightly more believable than Hutch being Toppy...

[Nothing to see]

QUOTE=The Good Michael;164183]How do we know Hutchinson wasn't a Jew and therefore, the Jewish witness? Since some people don't believe Topping and George were the same man, misguided thought they may be, they are then left with an unknown quantity. They then must accept the possibility that Hutchinson was Jewish.

Mike

A perfectly good question, Mike !

short answer : we don't !
(would it make a difference ?)

He didn't have a Jewish name (but of course he may have had an alias, or a Gentile father).
His description, nor his sketched portrait don't show any typical Jewish
stereotypical traits..but of course stereotypes are just that.
I would say that it would be slightly more believable than Hutch being Toppy...[/QUOTE]

He knew Kelly. He wasn't hanging around Dorset St for his health.

He wasn't Jack.

[The Good Michael]

Nothing,

What description? He had a military appearance. Hmm... means nothing really.

As for Hutch being Toppy, it is as close to a sure thing as it gets.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

I think that some of these newspaper reports are quite interesting :

St. James Gazette
London, England
14 November 1888

"I was out on Monday night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did at night"

"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning"

We have a Hutch accounting for where he was on Friday morning (the Victoria Home), and on Sunday morning (where he already knows about the murders), and Monday: there is a logical progression in the time.

Incidently Petticoat Lane Market (to which the Sunday morning sighting is referring, was outside his door, and another way of fixing his memory), making it even more unlikely that he could have got the days mixed up.

Morning Advertiser (London)
14 November 1888

He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police

He apparently DID hear of the murder, Fish !! If the reason that he didn't come forward was anything so straight forward as being 'at work' (verifiable by the ticks in that book, Lechmore), then he would surely have said so, rather than invoking another lodger at the Home.

Evening News
London, U.K.
14 November 1888

Dorset street is quieter this morning than it has been for some days, but the police still guard Miller's court.

And Hutch only lived 5 minutes away !

Hatchett :

Evening Star (Washington, D.C.)
Wednesday, 14 November 1888

But, in the meantime, it would be just as well to keep a sharp eye upon Hutchinson himself. He may be a convenient person to have about at a critical stage of the investigation which is soon to follow. The man popularly known as "Jack the Ripper" is full of devices, and it would not be surprising if it were found necessary later to put Hutchinson in his turn on the defensive.

With things like this starting to appear in the Press, there is no wonder that the Police started backing off (there is another Press report where Hutch is
described as a 'born witness' in very ironic terms).

Of course the Police couldn't investigate Hutch as thouroughly as all that , could they (as already illustrated)? they'd have to catch him the act...only the Ripper suddenly stopped.

[Rubyretro]

I think that some of these newspaper reports are quite interesting :

St. James Gazette
London, England
14 November 1888

"I was out on Monday night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did at night"

"After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed. I came in as soon as it opened in the morning"

We have a Hutch accounting for where he was on Friday morning (the Victoria Home), and on Sunday morning (where he already knows about the murders), and Monday: there is a logical progression in the time.

Incidently Petticoat Lane Market (to which the Sunday morning sighting is referring, was outside his door, and another way of fixing his memory), making it even more unlikely that he could have got the days mixed up.

Morning Advertiser (London)
14 November 1888

He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police

He apparently DID hear of the murder, Fish !! If the reason that he didn't come forward was anything so straight forward as being 'at work' (verifiable by the ticks in that book, Lechmore), then he would surely have said so, rather than invoking another lodger at the Home.

Evening News
London, U.K.
14 November 1888

Dorset street is quieter this morning than it has been for some days, but the police still guard Miller's court.

And Hutch only lived 5 minutes away !

Hatchett :

Evening Star (Washington, D.C.)
Wednesday, 14 November 1888

But, in the meantime, it would be just as well to keep a sharp eye upon Hutchinson himself. He may be a convenient person to have about at a critical stage of the investigation which is soon to follow. The man popularly known as "Jack the Ripper" is full of devices, and it would not be surprising if it were found necessary later to put Hutchinson in his turn on the defensive.

With things like this starting to appear in the Press, there is no wonder that the Police started backing off (there is another Press report where Hutch is
described as a 'born witness' in very ironic terms).

Of course the Police couldn't investigate Hutch as thouroughly as all that , could they (as already illustrated)? they'd have to catch him the act...only the Ripper suddenly stopped.

I wonder why that was..

[Nothing to see]

A perfectly good question, Mike !

short answer : we don't !
(would it make a difference ?)

He didn't have a Jewish name (but of course he may have had an alias, or a Gentile father).
His description, nor his sketched portrait don't show any typical Jewish
stereotypical traits..but of course stereotypes are just that.
I would say that it would be slightly more believable than Hutch being Toppy...

He knew Kelly. He wasn't hanging around Dorset St for his health.

He wasn't Jack.[/QUOTE]

Actually, that bit was my reply. I have no idea how it got caught up.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

[B]He knew Kelly.
He wasn't hanging around Dorset St for his health.

Well, I certainly agree with that !

[Roy Corduroy]

As well as the witnesses you have already cited, Roy, Major Smith was very much impressed by Lawende.

Well sure, Garry. A City witness in the City case.

Let us not forget either that it was Lawende and not Hutchinson who was called in to view Sadler.

No, I've not forgotten we assume the unnamed witness was Lawende used in the Sadler case. it was in a newspaper. Not something a policeman wrote.

But it is Anderson and Swanson, I believe, who provide the greatest insight into the thoughts of the most senior investigators engaged on the case. Their shared conviction that an innominate Jew was the only witness who ever got a good look at the killer clearly rules out Hutchinson. Whether the witness in question was Lawende or Schwartz is immaterial, since neither man was accorded anything even approaching the quality and duration of Hutchinson’s alleged sighting of Astrakhan. Thus it can only be inferred that Hutchinson’s account was discredited. It must have been, otherwise he would have been regarded as by far the strongest eyewitness to have emerged from the case

But Garry, they suspected a Jewish man. What Hutch said. This doesn't discredit him in the least bit.

Roy

[Rubyretro]

I just came across this reply on a Casebook thread, comparing an actual photo of McCarthy with a press portrait.

"Just to add - the sketch-artists for the press in 1888 were spot on - just
look at any of their drawings and you have John McCarthy".

Since Hutchinson was talking to the Press, I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't have sketched him from life, and why the picture posted earlier by Garry wouldn't have been equally accurate.