Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Fisherman]

That, Lechmere, would seem to be the problem of Ripperology. The evidence does not add up, therefore we need to interpret the inherent value of each piece, and when people interpret, they interpret differently.

Monty is a wise guy, and I do not think that he is opposed to any reasoning, as long as it is sound and not too flamboyant. He knows full well, though, that any reasoning that goes against the stated testimonies - no matter the built-in contradictions in them testimonies - will be subjected to (fully understandable) broadsides. And it is not until we can provide a fully functioning link that unevidenced suggestions and theories become truly interesting.

On a side note, this is of course also the explanation to the appeal the Ripper business has to many of us ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[John Winsett]

John Winsett:

"I think the question you should ask is what would be the trigger for me to think she would be in danger. If Hutchinson really thought MJK was in danger why not bring a cop to Millers Court that night? Why not wait until the guy left and make sure MJK was ok?"

On the latter question: What makes you think that was not what he was trying to do? He even went into the court to try and get some sign.

On the second: He could not be sure, could he - and barging into a prostitute´s room with a cop following would perhaps not be all too appreciated by any parts - but for the PC who could make an arrest for soliciting.

On the first: The trigger would be a correlation in appearance between the written-about killer and the man you saw.

The best,
Fisherman

Well, My head hurts now. I can't really say what I would do beyond what I said before but if Hutch cared so much any other actions he could've taken instead of what he did would've strengthened his case. MJK's actions do not warrant such scrutiny about her customer on his part even if he did read about a well dressed killer on the loose. His actions afterwards make no sense. Hanging around waiting for an hour in the cold waiting for a John, yet he never spys by the broken window? Just doesn't add up.

[Heinrich]

... Hanging around waiting for an hour in the cold waiting for a John, yet he never spys by the broken window? Just doesn't add up.

Exactly, John, the story a a load of balderdash.

[Ben]

Many thanks for the correction there, Garry.

I also agree that if Hutchinson is to be taken, by some, at his very word, then his word ought to be accepted as it stands on the historical record, lest the hapless defenders be accused of inconsistency in their reasoning. The moment anyone starts claiming that Hutchinson harboured suspicions that the man might have been the murderer, they are changing Hutchinson’s actual words in a clearly misguided attempt to make the account appear more plausible. Worse still, and as you note, Hutchinson stated the exact opposite – that he harbourned NO suspicions that the man was the murderer and DID NOT think that he looked like a man who would harm another. People should either accept his statement as it stands, or reject it on the basis of its startling implausibility, but fiddling about with it in a misguided attempt to enhance its credibility only makes matters worse.

And Abby, I agree with you regarding the recognition of the Hutchinson-Lewis non-coincidence. There can be very little doubt that Lewis was the man seen by Hutchinson – the coincidence is too striking for it to be credibly argued otherwise. It is, of course, bogus nonsense for anyone to argue that the similarity was registered by both press and police, investigated, and then magically dismissed for some lost-to-history reason and still failed to become public knowledge. A more depressing example of “filling in the blanks” would be difficult to find. Fortunately for the truth, we know that even the press of 1888 did not make the connection, despite their demonstrated eagerness to compare eyewitness sightings.

What often emerges from a determination to cast Hutchinson in the role of an honest witness is that one implausible suggestion is piled upon another to make the thing work. Unfortunately, such attempts only ensure that the “lying” option appears simple and logical by comparison. For example, either there really was a mysterious, negligent, untraced, unnamed policeman who ignored Hutchinson and got severely bollocked and/or sacked for it behind closed doors…or Hutchinson lied about it. Hutchinson managed, by some miracle, to remain oblivious to news of the Kelly murder until Sunday 11th November…or he lied about it. He walked 14 miles back from Romford in the small hours of a miserable morning in the certainty that there would be no lodging house bed for him at the other end….or he lied about.

There can be no doubt as to the more rational and simple explanation in each case, and it is likely that most rational people appreciate this, but an irritating minority are so terrified that an acknowledgement that he lied just might fuel suspicions that he was the murderer, that all these nonsensical “maybes” are trotted out as substitutes. Hutchinson clearly did not approach a policeman on Sunday. The idea is preposterous, and necessitates positing the existence of a negligent policeman, a lost-to-history “report” and an equally lost to history sacking, all on the basis of Hutchinson’s deeply discredited say-so. Had Hutchinson really approached a PC on the Sunday, Abberline would have certainly have heard about it well in advance of 6.00pm on Monday evening. To deny this is to embrace pure fantasy, and I frankly distrust the sincerity of the people who purport to believe this obvious nonsense – especially when it is super-added to the horror-theory involving Hutchinson only learning of the theory by Sunday.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

The trouble is Ben, if Hutch’s pants were on fire to the extent you suggest, it is dumbfoundingly, inconceivably, irrationally preposterous to suggest that the police would not have sussed him out (via a few simple ‘check outs’) and looked at him askance – and the police wouldn’t have been saying (up to 1895 anyway) that they had no suspect at all to go on.

[Ben]

“I would suggest that an individual who is initially reluctant to get involved in an activity, then trying it and enjoying it (this could be a description of Hutchinson’s behaviour) is not a rarity. Such behaviour is a lot more commonplace than psychotic/sociopathic serial killing.”

But that’s a silly thing to say, Lechmere, because however rare “psychotic/sociopathic serial killing” is a general phenomenon, we know it happened in this case a few feet away from where Hutchinson claimed to have stood on the night in question. I reject what you describe as “not a rarity”. Like it or not, you’ve constructed a entirely speculative up-and-down psychology and attempted to apply to Hutchinson because you hope it might account for both his failure to come forward earlier, and the implausible wealth of descriptive detail he provided when he eventually DID come forward. I’d rather put this particular question to those posters who do have a background in psychology, rather than relying on your ex cathedra pronouncement that it’s “as simply as that”.

I do not give a “murderous” slant to any of the details discussed in this thread. I simply allude to compelling indications that he lied in his evidence. You’re obviously one of the few people who fall into the inexplicable trap of assuming that lying must equal killing in Hutchinson’s case.

We can dispense with the idea that Hutchinson heard about the 9.00am death times, but remained bizarrely oblivious to the earlier times proffered. The press reports suggesting she had been murdered in the early hours were far greater in number and enjoyed far more widespread circulation that the minority-endorsed 9.00am theory.

“Why should ‘a few distinctly B-Team newspapers’ wish to exonerate Hutchinson in this manner?”

I’m not saying they were. I’m suggesting that these distinctly B-Team newspapers were probably left with the “dregs” in terms of case-related developments. Unsurprisingly, the more reputable and mainstream newspapers didn’t circulate this nonsense, but they did circulate an actual interview with Hutchinson himself.

“As I said I am suspicious about aspects of his story myself but in my opinion the evidence (such as it is) points to him being an opportunist on the make”

Fair enough – in which case, there’s no need for you to waste too much time defending all this transparent nonsense about mysterious Sunday policeman and minority endorsed press reports. It doesn’t aid your argument in the slightest to appropriate the very bad anti-Lewis arguments advanced by others either. You’re probably just saying so in an effort to salute and show solidarity with fellow Ben-botherers. As for Hutchinson being discredited as a liar, I might hesitate to describe it as an established fact, but it’s certainly the strong probability.

There is absolutely no contradiction between a “military appearance”, and “not tall but stout". I’d better prepare some old posts from the archives just in case anyone fancies another bash at that particular poopoo-storm.

“it is dumbfoundingly, inconceivably, irrationally preposterous to suggest that the police would not have sussed him out (via a few simple ‘check outs’) and looked at him askance”

You and your infernal, plutonic “checking out”, Lechmere!

Even if the police did suspect Hutchinson – for which we have no evidence – they were in no position to take mere suspicions further unless they were in possession of a magic wand. With no known record of medical knowledge, butchery skills, insanity, or a Jewish/foreign ancestry, he would still have failed to qualify as a contemporary suspect “to go on”. Nowadays, however…

[Ben]

“Right, answered almost everybody! Only Ben left”

Yes, I think your flurry of long posts just about covered it, Fisherman.

“You apparently misunderstand me, Ben. What I am asking for is objections that show that I am wrong.”

I cannot "prove" you wrong, and have always acknowledged as much. What I can provide, and what others have provided, is extremely good reasons for concluding "date confusion" is extremely unlikely to be the correct explanation. Garry addressed the “weather” aspect in greater detail than I did, but I would certainly dispute that it speaks “for” your suggestions more than it speaks “for” a fabricating Hutchinson.

"To the corner outside the court, in Dorset Street? On the sidewalk?"
"Yes"
"Which of the corners?"
"The eastern one."

Oh, no…

No, no, no…

Surely I’m not that drunk already…

Surely – surely - you didn’t just suggest that it would be “credible” for the police would quibble over the eastern and western corners of the Miller’s Court entrance? A person can be standing with his legs apart straddling both the eastern and western corners at the same time. One single stride will take a man of average height from the eastern corner to the western one, which is why the police would not, under any conceivable circumstances, request Hutchinson to distinguish between “corners”.

I know, you’re just having a laugh and I’m probably being po-faced, but I never quite know with you!

All joking aside, though, there is no evidence that Abberline or any one else grilled Hutchinson on his specific location, logically because no sane person roots him/herself to a specific location that can be pinpointed to within a few square inches, and no sane police officer expects any such ludicrous specificity of his/her witnesses either.

I wouldn’t compare Packer to Lewis, by the way, if that’s the latest plan. Packer provided a whole alleged encounter at his stall with the victim and a suspect, which was wholly absent from his initial account. This doesn’t compare with Lewis at all, and nobody thinks it did, then or now.

As for “eyelashes”, what a fascinating decision to bring that issue up again. Your point, however, is lost on me. The police statement included a “pale” complexion, not dark, so you can’t claim that the eyelash colour was assumed on the basis of the man’s “darkness” because, according to Hutchinson, he wasn’t “dark”. Even if the man was dark complexioned, I don’t accept your point that the colour of his eyelashes would only have been assumed on the basis of other features. He mentioned it specifically – dark eyelashes. It wasn’t an assumption, otherwise he may as well have included other assumptions, such as “circumcised knob”, in description, which he most assuredly did not.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

John Winsett:

"My head hurts now."

That´s because - i hope - you have come to realize that this whole story is not quite as simple as you used to believe.

"Hanging around waiting for an hour in the cold waiting for a John, yet he never spys by the broken window? Just doesn't add up."

It doesn´t answer to the logic you prefer, you mean? And how do we know that he did NOT try and spy through the window? Plus, that window had a pilot coat hanging over it, so discrete surveillance would have been hard to achieve. Furthermore, we know that Hutchinson claimed to have been in Kelly´s company before, but he never claims to have spent that time in her room, right? So how do we know that he knew in which room Kelly lived? Apparently, Kelly had not taken her customer´s to room 13 as longs as Barnett stayed with her. Plus, again, why would we assume that Hutchinson was a customer.

But that will have to do for now - I don´t want to add to your headache

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
How do you know when the coat was put over the window?Naughty you,making assumptions,after lecturing everyone else not to do so,without evidence.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The moment anyone starts claiming that Hutchinson harboured suspicions that the man might have been the murderer, they are changing Hutchinson’s actual words in a clearly misguided attempt to make the account appear more plausible."

I´ve seen worse offenses in that department, I have to say And I don´t remember promising to accept that Hutchinson´s words must be regarded as gospel in every instance. Have I done so?

No, I think that George Hutchinson was an innocent man, very willing to help the police, but perhaps a bit ashamed that he did not take any actions on the night he saw astrakhan man. Even if he did not spell that out to Abberline, he would have had scores of predecessors in this respect. So I´m afraid I can´t let you dictate my course in this respect either, Ben. A shame, I know, but there you are.

" There can be very little doubt that Lewis was the man seen by Hutchinson – the coincidence is too striking for it to be credibly argued otherwise."

And this is how the incredible parameters would look:

1. Hutchinson mistook that day - totally incredible. People never do, especially not Hutchinson.
2. Some other man was outside Crossinghams the following night. Utterly inconceivable. Would never happen, not in a million years. There are never men standing outside dosshouses, and opposite places where prostitutes are to be found. These are places that men generally avoid.
3. A person that first says to the police that she cannot say anything about a man she has noticed, only to later, at an inquest, suddenly claim that she could easily tell what kind of hat fashion that man preferred, together with an estimation of height and body structure, throwing in the color of his clothing, and adding his exact behaviour, is naturally such a good witness (in the second instance, not the first) that her testimony must be accepted as being correct. Albeit we know that changed testimony like this was and is regarded by the legal authorities as something that serves better as a reason for a hearty laugh than as evidence, whenever fate offers us a chance to cling onto such a laughable piece of testimony since it seemingly bolsters our preferred view, then let´s do so. On top of that, let´s claim that there is a correlation between the police´s calling that witness to the inquest and her testimony being endorsed as truthful by that same police - in spite of the very obvious fact that she was judged by the police and called to the inquest on basis of ANOTHER testimony - meaning, of course - that the testimony she offered at the inquest is a testimony about which we do not know what the police felt. We can only draw conclusions from what people working the case, like Swanson, generally thought about such behaviour and the ensuing value of such "evidence".

These are the three pillars that keep the argument that the two men almost certainly must have been one and the same erect. Or floating. Or keeping it´s nose over the surface.

Or drowning, more likely.

"It is, of course, bogus nonsense for anyone to argue that the similarity was registered by both press and police, investigated, and then magically dismissed for some lost-to-history reason and still failed to become public knowledge."

When it comes to talking bogus you ARE the authority out here, Ben. I admit that. But you need to get a grip if you think that the police was totally incompetent. They had fewer people related to by the inquest witnesses and Hutch in Dorset Street at that time, than they had fingers on their hands. And they would easily have made the connection.

"What often emerges from a determination to cast Hutchinson in the role of an honest witness is that one implausible suggestion is piled upon another to make the thing work. "

... wheras the ones who casts Hutch in the killer´s role need not go to any such lenghts at all ...

Jesus, I will have to dry my eyes after that one - it can´t be healthy to laugh that hard!

"the “lying” option appears simple and logical by comparison."

HAHAHAHAAA!! Please, Ben, no more ...I´m figthing for some air here ...

"an irritating minority are so terrified that an acknowledgement that he lied just might fuel suspicions that he was the murderer, that all these nonsensical “maybes” are trotted out as substitutes."

WHAT??? I would be extremely HAPPY if anybody can prove the identity of the killer, no matter if it was Hutchinson, Disraeli, Michael Schumacher, Winnie the Pooh or a distant relative of Adolf Hitler. I have no connections to or obligations towards anybody involved in the case, and so I don´t care who was the killer. But I would like to see him revealed, for justice´s sake, and for the sake of the ones who fell prey to him. If it was George Hutchinson, then may he burn in hell.

No, Ben, you are mistaken once more. The reason I defend Hutchinson is because I am equally convinced that nobody should be subjected to such allegations as the ones you present on such meagre grounds. It is not Hutchinson that is the villain here - it is you.

" I frankly distrust the sincerity of the people who purport to believe this obvious nonsense"

That is not something you should tell only to Abby. You should go straight to the administrators and tell them that you are of the meaning that some of the seasoned posters out here, including myself, Wickerman, Lechmere, the Good Michael and Stewart Evans, are lying.
It is a serious allegation, and needs to be reported, so if you are not ready to do it yourself, you may wish for me to help you out?

If you should change your mind, though, I think you need to tell us about it. I very much dislike when people claim I am not being honest. Can´t tell about the rest I listed, though. You are going to have sort this out with them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"How do you know when the coat was put over the window?"

Because Bowyer had to shove it to the side the morning after before he could peak into the room.

Anything more I can help you out with, Harry?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I cannot "prove" you wrong, and have always acknowledged as much. "

Well then! Is that to say that all we are left with here is your distaste for my suggestion? And that this distaste is not grounded in any proof, whatsoever, that I cannot be correct? Yes? You just "feel" that the whole suggestion of a trivially mistaken day is utterly ridiculous? Whereas you feel that the allegations - unproven in every instance, not acknowledged by the contemporary police and heavily criticized by most researchers of the case - that Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper, are realistic and called for?

Okay.

"Surely – surely - you didn’t just suggest that it would be “credible” for the police would quibble over the eastern and western corners of the Miller’s Court entrance?"

I´m afraid that your suggestion that they would not give a damn is a lot sillier. The police are always interested in detailing, as much as they can, the movements of people relating to murder cases. If you have something - anything - to disprove this, instead showing us that they could not care less about such things, then please be as good as to show something for it.

"there is no evidence that Abberline or any one else grilled Hutchinson on his specific location"

There is no evidence that he asked him about how he first met Kelly.

Do you think that he did?

Don´t flaunt things like these, Ben. It points only to grave ignorance on your behalf.

"I wouldn’t compare Packer to Lewis, by the way, if that’s the latest plan. Packer provided a whole alleged encounter at his stall with the victim and a suspect, which was wholly absent from his initial account."

... and Lewis provided a whole alleged description of the man she saw, which was wholly absent from her initial account.

Yeah, different thing.

Not.

" I don’t accept your point that the colour of his eyelashes would only have been assumed on the basis of other features. "

But that was not what I said, was it? I said that once you have established the type, you only need a fraction of a second to confirm that the eyelashes looked the way they invariably do on southern foreigners of this coloration.

And you know, even people from those countries can go pale. That does not alter the coloration of their skin, though.

"Your point, however, is lost on me. "

Good. Then I will be spot on again.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Lechmere, Fisherman,

It is rare that all witness statements verify exactly with the true course of events witnessed by another. There will be discrepancies and, in fact, it’s the matching pieces which draw the attention.

The PC didn’t notice him, as far as we know. Is that a discrepancy? No. As we do not know if the PC was there at that crucial 45 min slot and confirmed Hutchinson was not there on what would have been at least 2 sweeps down Dorset Street, many more. However, I digress.

I am stating that all testimony is to believed unless reasonable contradicting expert evidence (like the medical report in Maxwells case) is provided. Unless that evidence is forthcoming then testimony is to be believed as far as it is what the witness saw/experienced.

And I am far from wise, Im just merely an arrogant man who looks down on you all.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"I am far from wise, Im just merely an arrogant man who looks down on you all."

You can´t. I´m taller than you are

... but I still hear you from up here. AND I listen!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"testimony is to be believed as far as it is what the witness saw/experienced."

I would just like to add one thing here, and that relates to Dew´s suggestion of a mistaken day. You speak of what the witness saw/ experienced, and I don´t know how to fit a date in here. You can of course "see" that it is a certain date (for instance, if a place is only open on tuesdays, and if that place was witnessed to be open, then the witness has "seen" that it WAS Tuesday). Likewise, you may experience such a thing - if you are repeatedly told by different people that it is Tuesday, then you experience that this is true.

We can of course not tell how this all relates to Hutchinson. We don´t know if he "saw" or "experienced" that it was Friday morning - he may just as well have counted backwards - and counted wrong. There is plenty of evidence that this happens - I earlier qouted a highranking legal officer that mentioned that this was a very common mistake, made by many, many witnesses.

I have also pointed to a number of instances that may easily be interpreted as a useful pointer to Hutch having made this exact mistake - the omitted sighting of Lewis being a very obvious such. We also have a detective who worked the case suggesting that this was what happened. Instead of embracing the "obvious" thing that Hutch and Lewis´loiterer were one and the same, he instead chooses a solution that denies this connection. On what grounds, we don´t know, but we DO know that Dew must be regarded as a very valuable witness, coming from the police force as he did.


Considering these parameters, I think it is perfectly legal - and wise - to pursue this line. It does not mean, however, that I think that it is enough to dismiss Hutchinson´s proposal of having been in place in Dorset Street on Friday morning. There is no clear and unambiguous evidence to support such a thing. But there is a dire need to further research the missed day theory, and so far, I have not found one single thing - but for Hutchinson´s testimony - that contradicts it factually. On the contrary.

I hope this will do as an indication of the course I am presently following in this issue, Monty. And I hope you don´t find it in any way illegal or unwise to do so.

The best,
Fisherman