Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

As with all official statements, Hutchinson’s starts with “on 9th. . .” not a specific day. I seriously doubt that these were his own words, just the standard convention....

Sarah.
How about the other statement to the Star?

"The story is told by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a laborer. He says :- "On Thursday last I had been to Romford, in Essex, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning,...."

You had a creative idea, but it only works if you selectively ignore his press interview.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

What, precisely, amongst the questions that have been raised, regarding 'George Cross', has been fabricated?

"Just been added to the list" means, heading down the same path.

Questions being asked with the sole intent of creating suspicion where none exists.
.....Salem, comes to mind. But, if I recall correctly this is how it started with Hutchinson before the false accusations began to take form.

A general observation of this methodology being...
It's really all due to our ignorance of the participants in these drama's. We simply don't know enough about anybody among the witnesses, so we 'invent'.
If we can't find a villian, invent one. And who know's, I might get my fifteen minutes of fame if my idea takes on. Lost in all the smoke & mirrors is the fact (perhaps the only fact), that the proposal of innocent Mr X as a suspect was a fabrication from the start.

But, hey, thats just a voice from the cheap seats - Jon S.

[Colin Roberts]

"Just been added to the list" means, heading down the same path.

Questions being asked with the sole intent of creating suspicion where none exists.
.....Salem, comes to mind. But, if I recall correctly this is how it started with Hutchinson before the false accusations began to take form.

A general observation of this methodology being...
It's really all due to our ignorance of the participants in these drama's. We simply don't know enough about anybody among the witnesses, so we 'invent'.
If we can't find a villian, invent one. And who know's, I might get my fifteen minutes of fame if my idea takes on. Lost in all the smoke & mirrors is the fact (perhaps the only fact), that the proposal of innocent Mr X as a suspect was a fabrication from the start.

Granted; the fact that a single tree had to die, so that arguments, which cast suspicion upon the likes of Joseph Barnett and Robert Mann, could be published, is an injustice.

But, Hutchinson, in my opinion, is worthy of a publication, or two.

He's certainly not worth the amount of bandwidth and Casebook server storage capacity that is consumed, in his honor.

But, if six-or-seven 'Ripperologists' want to spend the rest of their lives, on the same 'roundabout', assuming - presumably - that the rest of 'Ripperology' is paying them any attention, at all, then ... let them do it. Who cares!

~~~

The fact that Charles Lechmere identified himself as 'Charles Cross', throughout the course of the investigation into the death of Mary Ann Nichols, should be seen, at this juncture, as being nothing less than bizarre.

Is that reason, in itself, that Lechmere's behavior should be labeled 'suspicious'?

No! Of course, it isn't!

But, it is certainly cause for additional scrutiny, of Mr. Lechmere.

Whilst you cry 'fabrication'; I cry 'complacency'!

[Wickerman]

....The fact that Charles Lechmere identified himself as 'Charles Cross', throughout the course of the investigation into the death of Mary Ann Nichols, should be seen, at this juncture, as being nothing less than bizarre.

They lived in different times. Comparing todays society which looks on alias's or pseudonyms as, suspicious, is what is driving this thing.
It's a common mistake to view 19th century traditions and customs with 21st century reasoning.

What might help is to research why common people 'often' used a variety of names, and perhaps present dozens of examples backed by a variety of reasons to help balance the arguments.

Regards, Jon S.

[SarahLee]

Sarah.
How about the other statement to the Star?

"The story is told by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a laborer. He says :- "On Thursday last I had been to Romford, in Essex, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning,...."

You had a creative idea, but it only works if you selectively ignore his press interview.

Regards, Jon S.

And that is why you guys are experts, while I'm still new at this

I'm currently picking my way through the information that's out there and trying to form my own opinion of what may or may not have happened on the nights in question for each of the murders, but I'm clearly not across everything yet.

I'm not quite ready to share my thoughts yet, until they're fully formed in my mind and I've cross-checked them with reference material . . . unfortunately I got a bit carried away with this one and posted before I'd discovered the other article.

Thank you Jon for pointing me in the right direction

[Wickerman]

And that is why you guys are experts, while I'm still new at this

Sarah.
We are all still learning something new. Some of us have been learning a bit longer than others, thats all

You will notice that a few of us longer serving students still have heated debates on the most frivolous issues, largely though, these are disagreements over differences in interpretation. Much is still open to interpretation, believe it or not.

I'm not quite ready to share my thoughts yet, until they're fully formed in my mind and I've cross-checked them with reference material . . . unfortunately I got a bit carried away with this one and posted before I'd discovered the other article.

Thank you Jon for pointing me in the right direction

You sound like you are at least approaching this study in the right frame of mind, I mean gathering and checking sources first before forming an opinion. Compared to some who do it the other way around

The forum will be interested in your conclusions, good luck!

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Hunter]

Hi Sara,

Jon is spot on in his post. There are no experts here; never have been. A case such as this, with so many loose ends and contradictions, does not lend itself to such nomenclature for anyone.

There are individuals that are well versed in certain areas, such as geography, culture, the police... etc... and their knowledge contributes to the quest for a general understanding of events. There are researchers who provide vital information to add and assimilate.

And there are theorists who promote answers that never have any certainty.

As Jon said, we are all students... with an ever expanding learning curve that could reach into infinity and still, possibly not come to definitiveness. Nevertheless, the quest is made from people all over the world.

Despite the debates...and sometimes acrimony, we, still, place ourselves into a common bond.

Welcome to the community that has no mayor.

[SarahLee]

Jon / Hunter,

Thank you both for your encouragement and kind words
Who knows, I may just get brave enough to start posting some of my ponderings soon.

The forum will be interested in your conclusions, good luck!

And I shall remind you of that comment, when I get laughed off the forum !!!

[John Winsett]

Who says it's dismissed?

Hi to all,
I've just perused this thread and want to know who exactly dismissed Hutchinson? As far as I know, there has been no documented proof that he was considered a false witness. The police even escorted him around to look for his suspect.
Here is my simple take on the matter. Hutchinson was full of it. There is no reason why he would remember such details of a man unless he had an alterior motive.
Because of the lack of documentation, it's hard to say what the police thought at the time, but I think we can all agree the witnesses are not completely accurate on descriptions, times etc.
the thing about Hutchinson is why. Why would he give a description? Why would he pay such close attention and be able to pick out specific details in a 10 second glance on a dart street in the middle of the night? Why would he care about a client of Mary's so much?
Hutchinson complicates matters because he has no reason to do what he did. To say he did it out of concern for MJK's killer makes sense but not after 3 days and after the inquest. Nope, he's just not credible.

[Wickerman]

Hi to all,
I've just perused this thread and want to know who exactly dismissed Hutchinson? As far as I know, there has been no documented proof that he was considered a false witness. The police even escorted him around to look for his suspect.

Hi John.
Thats correct, he was not dismissed as a witness. The press wrote that the police had reservations about his story, without explaining why. No police record exists to clarify the matter, and the description of Mr Astrachan was circulated as a 'suspect' description. As were all the other 'suspect-last-seen' descriptions with the other murders.

Here is my simple take on the matter. Hutchinson was full of it. There is no reason why he would remember such details of a man unless he had an alterior motive.

This is just totally wrong. People are not clones, just because you may not pay attention to detail does not mean no-one else can. In fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Many people are very preceptive, while others couldn't give the colour of the bus that ran over them.

Because of the lack of documentation, it's hard to say what the police thought at the time, but I think we can all agree the witnesses are not completely accurate on descriptions, times etc.

This is a fact of life in modern policing, eyewitness testimony can be notoriously unreliable. The difference is the attention to detail with Hutchinson.
Anyone who notices 'dark spats with light buttons', 'horse-shoe tie-pin', 'thick gold chain & seal with red stone' is not in those 'vague' description categories. Hutchinson's description is not vague at all, and a modern police investigation would certainly not classify his description as 'unreliable' nor 'vague'.

the thing about Hutchinson is why. Why would he give a description? Why would he pay such close attention and be able to pick out specific details in a 10 second glance on a dart street in the middle of the night? Why would he care about a client of Mary's so much?

He explained why, "My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well-dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer."
Also, "he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

If Kelly did not normally accost well-dressed men then Hutchinson's reason is understandable. His opinion is the only opinion we have on the matter, so we have nothing to contest it with.

To say he did it out of concern for MJK's killer makes sense but not after 3 days and after the inquest. Nope, he's just not credible.

And that is the missing piece to the puzzle, there is no record, not even a hint as to why he did not come forward.
Therefore, people choose to invent a reason, usually on the negative side, as a means of dismissing him.

What is missing here is that Caroline Maxwell was giving interviews with the press on Friday evening, so obviously had been sharing her story that Kelly was alive Friday morning.
Two papers, Morning Advertiser & Daily News both ran stories on Saturday morning that Kelly had been seen alive.
There is no reason to doubt that the local rumor mill believed Kelly had not been killed overnight - Hutchinson declared that he had no reason to believe the man he saw at 2:00am was the murderer.
That makes perfect sense, the local residents thought she was alive at 9:00am.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

And just by way of emphasis, two Friday evening papers carried these reports, that Mary Kelly had been seen Friday morning and had therefore been alive at daybreak..

"The story of the crime current among the neighbors is that this morning - what time cannot at present be precisely ascertained, but at any rate after daylight, she took a man home to her own room, presumably for an immoral purpose. At a quarter to eleven the landlady of the house went up for the rent, and found her murdered."
Star Nov. 9.

And two seperate sources attest to Mary Kelly being alive early Friday morning.

"Morris Lewis, a tailor, states that he was playing "pitch and toss" in the court at nine o'clock this morning, and an hour before that he had seen the woman leave the house, and return with some milk. There is no evidence as to who was in the house with her."

"It is confidently stated that the deceased was seen after ten o'clock this morning in company with a paramour, when they were both drinking at the public-house at the corner of Dorset-street."
Echo, Nov. 9.

This being the case, that the first Friday evening publications, and followed by Saturday morning papers, all carried stories that Mary Kelly was killed sometime Friday morning, after 10:00am? - isn't it understandable that Hutchinson truely believed the man he saw at 2:00am would not have been the murderer?

The revised time of death determined by medical evidence was only first released at the inquest on Monday.
Reasonably then, once the inquest was concluded late on Monday, the local Whitechapel residents first heard that she must have died overnight - to their complete surprise, no doubt.

Hence, Hutchinson is now pursuaded to come forward by another border where he lived.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Interesting idea, Jon, that Hutchinson did not come forward earlier because he believed that Mr A had no connection with the murder. But according to Hutchinson, he did come forward earlier. He claimed that he told his story to a policeman on the Sunday before the inquest. If he did tell a policeman on the Sunday, then it looks as though Hutchinson did feel that Mr A was relevant in some way, and one might have expected Hutchinson to go to the police station and make a formal statement prior to the inquest. If on the other hand he was lying about having told his story to a policeman on the Sunday, then why? All he needed to say was "I thought the man I saw couldn't have been the killer because Kelly was alive on Friday morning. But now it seems she was killed in the middle of the night, so I've come forward."

[Ben]

“I do not harbour any fascination at all about you, much as you seem to hope this. What I dislike is your views and the way you promote them. I even more dislike the way you call other people´s views, mostly mine, "nauseating" and "obscenities towards human thinking". It is very bad manners and a deeply disturbing trait of yours”

Ignore me, then.

Ignore the advice that you took such an exception to (rather than trying to “disallow” it). Threatening more repetition as some sort of “reprisal” measure is hardly going to deter me, is it? Think about it.

Put me on “ignore” if you have that much of a problem.

I’m sorry you feel the way you do, of course, as I’d prefer to have a civil discussion and avoid ill feeling, but since this never appears to be possible, I don’t see what other options exist.

“But of course - how ELSE should we treat a police witness that is totally unambiguos, but sadly goes against your convictions? Out he goes, silly bugger!”

I was only listening to your own opinions about Dew, which you changed dramatically as soon as you decided on your “wrong day theory. I never suggested that Hutchinson’s “discrediting” was only referenced at “senior” level. The “juniors” would naturally have been informed about it as well, if only to kept appraised of the latest status of the Astrak-hunt. The difference, of course, is that the latter group did not need to know WHY Hutchinson’s evidence was discredited.

“for who can shut you up or make you say "I was wrong"?”

Not you, evidently.

And yet you still bother trying.

Weird.

We just need a slightly better guide to the Errant Ways of Ben if ever I’m going to get my comeuppance, I’m afraid.

[Ben]

“And, as nothing has changed in their memoirs I don't see the point of speculating on whether they could remember the details they claimed to have remembered.”

No “speculation” required, Jon, because the police were referring to specific events that occurred either concurrently with, or a few years after, the murders, such as the attempted identification of a suspect or suspects by a Jewish witness, and the circumstances attaching to that identification. Unless you’re seriously suggesting that Hutchinson was the witness, and the police officials in question were so addle-minded that they all forgot this detail.

“Who knows, maybe Macnaghten DID know something Anderson didn't, afterall, Druitt does seem to have a "pale complexion", "small moustache', "dark eyes" ! Do you think Druitt was from the same social class as Artrachan/Bethnal Green man”

No.

But if you’re sympathetic to the Druitt theory, this would certainly explain some of the rather perplexing arguments you’ve recently advanced on the various Hutchinson threads. It’s essential to be consistent. Interestingly, you caution me against using documents such as the Macnaghten Memoranda to support the contention that Hutchinson was discredited, but when it comes to Druitt and his potential culpability, the Macnaghten memo suddenly becomes a useful document to study.

Unless you’re only kidding about Druitt - in which case, phew!

Please don’t keep going on about what you perceive to be “false accusations” levelled at Hutchinson. You cannot possibly know whether they’re “false” or not, not that I see anyone “accusing” anyone of anything here. Express an opinion, but don’t antagonise with haughty indignation. If, as you’re now suggesting, people only express a less than favourable view of Hutchinson to pursue 15 “fifteen minutes of fame”, it is clear that they’re succeeding very well indeed, with your help.

[Ben]

Hutchinson was almost certainly discredited.

We can go round and round in repetitive circles on the subject if we want, but this obvious reality isn’t going to change.

“The press wrote that the police had reservations about his story, without explaining why”

This is absolutely untrue. The Echo communicated directly with the police and ascertained from them WHY Hutchinson’s account had been considerably discounted - because of the very late appearance of his evidence and his failure to attend the inquest where he would have been quizzed “under oath”. The implication, of course, is that they doubted his integrity. I've already mentioned the police reports, interviews, and memoirs – from which Hutchinson’s name is conspicuously absent whenever the subject of the witnesses crop up in them – that support this conclusion. With all the evidence pointing one way, it seems rather churlish to adopt a stubbornly conflicting view on the subject.

John Winsett is not “totally wrong” to observe that “there is no reason why Hutchinson would remember such details of a man unless he had an alterior motive”. He is absolutely spot on. It is barely possible to take in so much detail during a fleeting moment near a Victorian gas lamp in poor weather conditions at night time, let alone commit them to memory, let alone regurgitate them upon command with near exactitude several times. If he spent his time focussing on one aspect of the man's appearance during that fleeting moment (the face, according to his account), it is not possible to also notice a myriad of other tiny details pertaining to the man's appearance. Common sense is urged when contemplating the suggestion that anyone can seriously notice and memorize the minute particulars of the man's upper body at the the same time as noticing and memorizing the minute particulars of the man's lower body.

And a modern police force would most certain consider any claim to discern eyelash shade in darkness to be “unreliable”.

What’s also nonsense is that idea that “His opinion is the only opinion we have on the matter, so we have nothing to contest it with”. According to this logic, if Gary Ridgway’s “opinion” is that he is innocent of the Green River murders, we have nothing to contest it with? This is yet another appeal for uncritical acceptance of the patently false. We have plenty to contest Hutchinson’s claims with, not least the fact that his account was discredited owing to doubts about his credibility.

“There is no reason to doubt that the local rumor mill believed Kelly had not been killed overnight .”

Two newspaper articles is not sufficient to influence popular perception as to Kelly’s time of death.

“Hutchinson declared that he had no reason to believe the man he saw at 2:00am was the murderer”

Only because, at the time of the alleged sighting, he did not look like the sort of man who would harm another. Nothing at all to do with any Morning Advertiser report.