Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[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

[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

[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…

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[Lechmere]

Far be it for me to wish to pick holes in Monty’s lines of reasoning but if we are to accept testimony, what are we to make of conflicting testimony which is no rare thing?
Some say nowadays that as Lewis’s testimony marries up with Hutchinson’s testimony it is a fair assumption that the Wide-awake man equalled Hutchinson. Therefore Hutchinson had to be in Dorset Street in the early hours of Friday morning.
Even though no one (police or media) at the time made that connection. And the beat PC didn’t notice him. And there is an apparent contradiction between the description Lewis gave of the man she says she saw (not tall but stout) and the press description of Hutchinson (military appearance).

But what of Maxwell’s testimony - is that to be believed because it is testimony?

[Lechmere]

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.
Accordingly as a possible explanation for Hutchinson’s behaviour it is not implausible, and indeed is more plausible than that he ‘did it’. Even if Hutchinson was in Dorset Street on the night of the murder. It is a relatively commonplace explanation. It is as simple as that.
What we are left with are a limited series of events that you give a murderous slant to, each of which can each be given an entirely different and entirely innocent (of murder anyway) slant.
There are relatively commonplace explanations for Hutchinson’s behaviour throughout.

Why he was late back from Romford
How he managed to remember that level of detail in his description
Whether someone like the A-man may have been out and about
Why he went to Dorset Street
Why he didn’t mention seeing Lewis (i.e. maybe he didn’t see her)
Why he didn’t come forward on Friday or Saturday
Why he didn’t press matters with the policeman on Sunday
Why he didn’t come forward until after the inquest

Also we simply don’t know what version of Kelly’s time of death Hutchinson heard about.
And why on earth is the newspaper claim that there was a known but unspoken reason for Hutchinson’s delay in coming forward ‘a deeply silly smoke and mirrors claim’.
Why should ‘a few distinctly B-Team newspapers’ wish to exonerate Hutchinson in this manner?

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 – a little bit like your old chum Violenia.
It may well be that he involved himself for a bit of dough then backed out by saying to the police
‘Now I think of it – maybe I was out by a day’.....

In putting Hutchinson in Dorset Street in a wide-awake hat (which he may not have possessed of course) we also have to put a lot of weight on Lewis’s testimony – a witness who at one point was characterised as someone who couldn’t verbally describe someone... until she managed to get over that disability.

On the side of the road he was on – didn’t Hutchinson say that he went actually down Miller’s Court for a closer look at one point, so he must have crossed Dorset Street?

And – bad-a-bong – we don’t know that Hutchinson was discredited as a liar – that is your interpretation Ben. It is one of those things which you are desperate to turn into an established fact when it isn’t.

[Fisherman]

One more thing that I have been wanting to say, relating to all this business with identifications and descriptions: I am told that Hutchinson´s statement that his man had dark eyelashes means that we can conclude that he was a liar and a killer.
This, I find, may be a tad premature. Take a look at this picture:

http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/facts_about__uday_hussein

and I will tell you why. The picture (of one of Saddam Hussein´s sons) shows a man of typical mid-east colouring. He has darkish olive skin, dark eyes, black hair, black beard and moustache, and blonde eyelashes.

Nah, just kidding - he of course has dark eyelashes too - people of this coloration always have that. And I think that Astrakhan man was somebody displaying this exact colour type. He had dark hair, dark eyes, dark moustache, darkish olive skin - and it is small wonder that he had dark eyelashes too.

And that would be what Hutchinson took in - he did not do any hairstrand-by-hairstrand analysis, he simply recognized the man as somebody with the sort of heritage that is set off in these dark colours. They are all invariably dark eyes and dark eyelashes-types, it typically travels together and it will only take a fraction of a second to see that.
Hutchinson may well have noted it long before he stooped down, by the way. It is something you do not miss easily; anybody of us who saw Uday Hussein (the guy in the pic) standing in a street corner would immediately be able to recognize him as a man with dark eyes and eyelashes. It only takes one look at the picture to see what I am talking about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Right, answered almost everybody! Only Ben left, and since any discussion with Ben tend to get repetitious, I think I will opt for finding just three things to answer, and let the rest stay uncommented.

Let´s see now, what have we got...? Ah, there we are:

1. "You know absolutely full well that others have provided specific reasons for doubting the “date confusion” hypothesis, and yet you pretend that they haven’t, and that their criticisms have been limited to “I don’t think…” with nothing of substance beyond this. Unless you suffer from a particularly severe case of selective memory, you know full well why people reject your proposal. The overwhelming probability that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw on the morning of the 9th November for one. Then there’s the obvious reality that what you outline as anomalies (such as walking around all night on a cold, wet night) can far more logically be chalked up to fabrication than “date confusion”.

You apparently misunderstand me, Ben. What I am asking for is objections that show that I am wrong. Not choosing to believe that the weather anomalies came about because Hutch lied. The weather anomalies REMAIN anomalies, and as such, they speak FOR my suggestion very much. The much inspired guess that Hutchinson lied does nothing to change that.

So, I am still waiting - which objections can be made, proving that my perspective does not work? Or does it in fact work in all particulars?

2. " it would be an odd detail to include. “Please understand, sir, that I was never on the Crossingham side. Heavens above, no!” "

Funny, Ben! Not bad at all! Of course, it is of no use in the discussion, but still!

No, we should not assume that the interrogation consisted of Hutchinson offering what he wanted to offer. That is not how an interrogation happens. It is the other way around totally - the police ASKS questions, and the witness ANSWERS them. Therefore, the more credible conversation would have been along these lines:

"Well then, Mr Hutchinson, after you had left the corner of Dorset Street, following this couple, what did you do.?"
"I went to the court, to see if..."
"To the court, you say?"
"Yes, I wanted to ..."
"Just a minute, Sir, and let us get this straight. When you say you went to the court, do you mean that you went into the court?"
"No, no - I went to the corner of the court"
"To the corner outside the court, in Dorset Street? On the sidewalk?"
"Yes"
"Which of the corners?"
"The eastern one."
"And did you stay there throughout the time you waited?"
"Yes, I did."
"You did not leave the corner at any stage?"
"Not that I can remember, no. Why would I do that?"
"For no reason at all, Sir - we are merely trying to establish, as best as we can, your exact movements during the morning. That will make us able to confirm other witnesses´ testimony."
"Oh, I see! No, I never left the corner as such, I´m sure of that."

It is not by any standards as funny as your story, Ben, I am the first to admit that. But you see, police work relating to high-profile murder cases seldom IS funny. It is instead about being as meticulous as possible, trying to establish as many factors as possible.
But you perhaps think that my suggested interrogation scenario is totally incredible too? Maybe you believe that policing was in it´s infancy and all that, and that Abberline asked about how Hutchinson´s uncle was doing?

3. " Lewis was a genuine witness and was recognised as such."

Let´s lend an ear to Donald Swanson, and hear what he had to say about another witness who first said he saw nothing, and then changed his story:

(The witness) "made different statements" (and therefore) "any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence".

This, Ben, is what happens to witnesses who take the leap from "I could not say" to "Wait a sec! I CAN say!"

Bad-a-bing, was it...? I think I will settle for just the "Bad" if you don´t mind.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"It was certainly current when I first took an interest in Hutchinson in the mid-Eighties, Ben. I'm fairly sure that Colin Wilson and Robin Odell made the connection in their Summing Up and Verdict, and I think that Don Rumbelow referred to it even earlier."

Really?? Geniuses! How on earth could they do that???

Yes, Garry, you are quite correct. And I could not resist a bit of jestering here, since it is formidably obvious to me that even a blind donkey would have made the connection.

We should not, however, hope to see this connection made in the years following immediately upon the murders and investigations - for at that stage, I very much suspect that everybody involved in the case knew full well that the connection could not be made. There would have been knowledge around that Hutchinson´s story and Lewis´ditto were unreconcilable, and that knowledge would have been what threw Hutch´s testimony out.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"This is where people tend to become confused, Fish. Hutchinson in fact claimed to have harboured no suspicion whatever regarding Astrakhan. He was quite explicit in this context, and stated, 'I did not think he would harm another.' His interest in Astrakhan, he maintained, was stimulated as a consequence of Astrakhan's well-to-do appearance. Nothing more."

And why do you secure a very good look at the face of such a man? Because you want to know how the faces of wealthy men look, generally?

Why do you note all the things Hutchinson noted mentally, about such a man?

Because ... ehhh ... well, why?

Put yourself in Hutchinson´s situation, Garry, and make a leap of fantasy. Imagine that you DO think that the man you are seeing with your woman friend may be the Whitechapel fiend. You have read the rags, you have heard the gossip on the town about a murderous toff, quite possibly a very wealthy man, killing off prostitutes. It would not be a very strange deduction to make that he may be the real McCoy, would it?

On we go: Now, further make the assumption that Hutch calms himself and tries to convince himself that he must be wrong, mistaken. He cannot let go of the suspicions, though, and so he stands around, hoping for Kelly to emerge alive, showing him that he was wrong. But that does not happen. He even goes into the yard to try and see if he can get a sign of things, but - nothing.
In the end, he decides to leave. "Silly me, why would that man be a killer? Stupid!" He convinces himself that all was well, and walks away.

Three days later, he is standing in the police station, and needs to tell Abberline either that "Yes, I felt sure that it could have been the killer, I reaslly suspected it, but I decided to do nothing about it" or "I was initially suspicious of the man because of his wealth, but I felt quite certain that he was not a killer".

Now, which of these alternatives would you opt for? The "I suspected it but did nothing about it"-alternative, or the "I will help out as much as I can, but I really never saw the danger"-alternative?

Why would anybody not be "impressed", "taken aback" or "flabbergasted" by wealth, by the way - why would they instead be "suspicious" about it? In what manner is wealth something to be suspicious or frightened about?

The best,
Fisherman