A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Herlock Sholmes]

So who do you guys think will be the first one to revisit the ole' woodshed first? Will it be Michael or Herlock? Or do you think they will be strolling off in that direction hand in hand?

A word to the wise, boys. A word to the wise.

c.d.

I’m happy to leave it c.d. I just think that it reflects badly on the subject when something that’s obviously true is denied. I’m tired of banging my head against the wall tbh.

[Michael W Richards]

So who do you guys think will be the first one to revisit the ole' woodshed first? Will it be Michael or Herlock? Or do you think they will be strolling off in that direction hand in hand?

A word to the wise, boys. A word to the wise.

c.d.

As I told you upon my return, I dont seek but I also dont shirk. Insulting attitudes dont always bring out the best in other people.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I said attempting to make, with little success....so you started off wrong and went on from there. And proving that you dont even read the posts that you trash.

Just leave it at this, I said the objective of the Inquest is to arrive at a jury conclusion as to which of the Five Death Categories Strides death falls under. All the Ripper Inquest concluded that Wilful Murder was the probable Category.

No. The object of an inquest is to put on record WHO the victim provably was. WHEN the victim was killed (meaning the date of death and not the ToD). WHERE the victim was killed. And HOW the victim was killed (which meant … what caused the ending of life) Witnesses (whether members of the public or professionals) are used to achieve these 4 aims.

Once those have been established it is only then decided on whether it was murder, manslaughter etc.

Youve been on and on about how thats patently incorrect...when all it takes to brush off your argument and accept mine is to look at the summary of these Inquests and see what was concluded. Wilful Murder means life taken by someone other than the victim themselves, and purposefully done....in case thats an issue for you as well. Her being seen with another person before that cut is made would without a doubt be,.... as I keep saying...(maybe you should actually read and absorb one of these, save me having to repeat things for the slower folks),....germane to a conclusion of Wilful Murder.

The above paragraph is a pointless collection of words.

You can stomp your feet all you want, the proof of my statement is in every summary of every Inquest in the Canonical Group. How is Category. I know interpreting things isnt your strong suit, If you announce you are touching a window,.. then someone examines it and its discovered that it is in fact a door,... your conclusion that its not its a window anyway means you are just vainly sticking by your own error.

It’s little short of remarkable that anyone can keep quoting the ‘wilful murder…’ part as if it’s something that others haven’t noticed. Every inquest comes to this final conclusion. The witness are there to help the Coroner arrive at an answer for the 4 stated aims. This is written, in black and white, in perfectly understandable English in the Coroner’s Act of 1887. Have you somehow found another Coroners Act based in an alternative universe. Then based on those aims being achieved a final conclusion is drawn. A Doctor concluding murder and advising the inquest of that would not have based his opinion on Israel Schwartz.

That Israel Schwartz was a non-vital witness is a fact. And a very obvious one. For years you’ve been seeking to discredit him so that you can make him fit your theory. This is all that anyone needs to know. Bias is behind your posts on this subject. You wish to somehow ‘prove’ that Schwartz was a liar so you are distorting the truth to try a show that he was left out of the Inquest due to the police not believing him. That no one agrees with you will of course not bother you. You’re used to it.

[c.d.]

So who do you guys think will be the first one to revisit the ole' woodshed first? Will it be Michael or Herlock? Or do you think they will be strolling off in that direction hand in hand?

A word to the wise, boys. A word to the wise.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

In fact I dont recall ever reading a post from you Herlock that didnt contain some counter-intuitive pronouncements. Like despite Israel not being at the Inquest, he was important to it, or despite Louis stating he arrived "precisely" at 1 you apparently believe it was just after 1am now., despite a statement from an officer of law saying he saw a search party looking for help before 1. So not only do you assert that Louis actually didnt arrive at 1...because you know that clearly no witness with a view of that street until 1am saw him arrive at 1, but you also assert that the law officer was wrong on his time, and that Eagle didnt go for help until Louis alerted him to the woman in the passageway after he arrived, which you claim was just after 1.

So...according to you.... Louis arrives just after 1 and Eagle is seen by the officer just before 1 seeking help, despite the fact that Eagle didnt even go for help until after Louis arrived? And you insult my arguments....pleeeeeeeze. I attempt to open discussions based on evidence I submit, you ignore valid posts and insult the poster. You claim Im wrong with my conclusions, and that law officers stated times were wrong, witnesses stated times were wrong, that people can be seen having reacted to something before it happens, and George Hutchinson could not possibly have given his statement so that Wideawake Hat man becomes less suspicious and Blotchy is supplanted as last man seen with Mary. Despite the fact that is exactly what happened as a result of his "story".

Thank god we have Clouseau on the case.

[Michael W Richards]

Success?! Are you serious. Never has a point be so thoroughly, absolutely and categorically disproven as your inquest point. It has been dismissed by myself and other numerous times for years. David Orsam tore it to shreds and spat out the bones and yet you are seriously claiming some kind of victory?! I’d suggest that only Trevor compares in the ability to stand absolutely alone on a point and yet still insist that everyone else is wrong and they are right. Give it up Michael, for the sake of everyone’s sanity. You are so wrong on this.

All I can say is…

I said attempting to make, with little success....so you started off wrong and went on from there. And proving that you dont even read the posts that you trash.

Just leave it at this, I said the objective of the Inquest is to arrive at a jury conclusion as to which of the Five Death Categories Strides death falls under. All the Ripper Inquest concluded that Wilful Murder was the probable Category.

Youve been on and on about how thats patently incorrect...when all it takes to brush off your argument and accept mine is to look at the summary of these Inquests and see what was concluded. Wilful Murder means life taken by someone other than the victim themselves, and purposefully done....in case thats an issue for you as well. Her being seen with another person before that cut is made would without a doubt be,.... as I keep saying...(maybe you should actually read and absorb one of these, save me having to repeat things for the slower folks),....germane to a conclusion of Wilful Murder.

You can stomp your feet all you want, the proof of my statement is in every summary of every Inquest in the Canonical Group. How is Category. I know interpreting things isnt your strong suit, If you announce you are touching a window,.. then someone examines it and its discovered that it is in fact a door,... your conclusion that its not its a window anyway means you are just vainly sticking by your own error.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you are looking for validation or evidence that is 100% irrefutable you have chosen the wrong hobby. I would think that would have been very apparent by now.

c.d.

Exactly c.d. We have to remember the circumstances and what the police at the time were working with before we view them too harshly imo. No matter that he didn’t catch the ripper, Abberline was still a highly regarded Detective officer and it’s unlikely that he’d gained that reputation by luck. At this distance of time I think that we should be very wary of judging his faults or merits based on our own thoughts/opinions/preconceptions. As I’m certain you’d accept, no one is or has ever been infallible, but the fact that he valued Schwartz and Hutchinson as witnesses should tell us at the very least that these two men appeared credible to him; and that means that they likely were credible. Being ‘credible’ doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have been mistaken or that they weren’t liars of course; they were human.

I think that in general witnesses tend toward honesty. Are there that many witnesses who would knowingly place themselves at or near the crime with no one to back them up in proving that they themselves weren’t the guilty party? It seems unlikely. No one saw Schwartz…so what? An almost deserted street with one woman’s rather unreliable account of when she was or wasn’t at her front door. An incident that would have taken 20 seconds tops? That it went unseen should surprise no one. And Hutchinson? I always used to wonder about the clothing but as Hutchinson appeared to have been dirt poor his description of H might have been exaggerated if perhaps unintentionally. In the dark (and even under a brief street light) a decent quality suit that had seen better days might have appeared like the clothes of a wealthy man to H. If we could go back and get Astrakhan Man in front of us he might not have appeared quite as well-to-do as he did to H. Perhaps a local business man that had fallen on rough times?

[c.d.]

The police then throw in names like Kosminski and Druitt as a means to play a game of Smoke and Mirrors to cover their own mess and to bide them some time why they continued looking for the real killer.

Damn clever of them! I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Hutchinson was on Double Secret Probation.

That is a Animal House reference to anyone who didn't get it.

c.d.

[Fiver]

Hi Fiver,

Oh, that's an interesting idea I've not heard before. Personally, the report about a "man pursued", has always struck me as a conflation between the Schwartz event and the search by the club members along Fairclough that occurred shortly later, where the search members are calling for police help, and there's no reason to presume they were running in a single group but could have spread out a bit, looking as if one pursues the other. Obviously I need not be correct, but I would think if there were witnesses to such a pursuit of a potential JtR we would hear more of it in the press or official documents. Mind you, my thinking that doesn't mean we would.

- Jeff

The man pursued story came from a club member.

"In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made [?] [?] [?] there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be [?] from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally [?] fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation." - 1 October 1888 Echo.

William West was the club secretary. West had already gone home before the body was discovered, but I'd have expected him to have heard of the attempts of his fellow club members to contact the police. Rather than confusing that with the Schwartz account, that might be Wess confirming it, but showing that Pipeman thought Broadshouldered Man had accused Schwartz of being a murderer by calling him 'Lipski". Schwartz fleeing could have been interpreted as a sign of guilt by Pipeman.

[The Rookie Detective]

Was George Hutchinson the "accomplice?"


We know that the WVC had been pushing and pushing for the reinstatement of a reward for any accomplice coming forward to catch the Ripper.


The government refused to go back to the system they had only recently scrapped...but after MJK was murdered...something suddenly changed.


The inquest was hurried through.


And the government appeared to take a uturn, albeit a relatively short lived one IIRC.


Now...what if George Hutchinson came forward as the man who introduced the Ripper to MJK?


What if the police agreed to grant Hutchinson anonymity in exchange for his information on the real Ripper?


Hutchinson was then payed a reward and given a new identity; hence why he dissappears from all records.


The question is... did Hutchinson double bluff them?

Did he point the finger at Joseph Isaacs...and then after capturing Isaacs then realise that the real Ripper was Hutchinson?

...who by this time was already in the wind.


Imagine the audacity of a man coming forward as an accomplice to claim his reward AND anonymity from prosecution, to then be realised as the real Ripper who escapes abroad.

The same kind of audacity as placing a Torso under the new central building for the police in Whitehall.


Did the police have to fabricate most of what Hutchinson said and/did because they couldn't tell the public they had been played?


Was the feeling of a cover up simply as a result of the police being absolute idiots?

Just an idea of course...but explains a lot...


and perhaps why the killer only APPEARED to stop killing.


Perhaps he had no choice to lay low for a while.


The police then throw in names like Kosminski and Druitt as a means to play a game of Smoke and Mirrors to cover their own mess and to bide them some time why they continued looking for the real killer.

What's the best way to stop the public asking too many questions?
GIve them something fabricated that they can believe is true.


Some things never change



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

The efforts of the various senior officers to make it look as though they had any idea who the Ripper was brought about the likes of Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminski as suspects.

It seems to me that there was a lot of trying to save face, because in reality the police failed and spent much of their time backpedalling in an attempt to look like they knew what they were doing.

The police interviewed/arrested dozens...and dozens...and dozens of potential suspects, and couldn't find the killer.

Reminiscent of the Yorkshire Ripper case in some respects.


What's interesting with Joseph Isaacs, or "Joe" Isaacs, is that when they arrested him nearly a month after the murder of MJK, there's no record of them revisiting Hutchinson to potentially corroborate/cross-reference his sighting.


We mustn't fail to remember that Hutchinson claimed he saw the last man seen with the victim actually enter into the room in which she was murdered.

Think about that for a moment.


Hutchinson gave a vivid description of the man who almost certainly murdered MJK...

They then arrest a man seemingly based on; but not exclusive to Hutchinson's description of the man he saw with the victim.

Coming forward after an inquest with key information didn't help his cause, but why did Hutchinson just disappear after giving such a detailed statement?


At some point the investigation seemed to just fizzle out, despite no arrests being made...but I have an idea...




RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point I was attempting to make with little success is that the story given by Israel Schwartz would be relevant to the Inquest mandates. He says he saw the victim when no-one else did, being assaulted at around 12:45...when Blackwells earliest cut estimates begin around 12:46. It would be a logical assumption that if this actually happened, then the man seen with Liz likely makes the cut. Ruling out several other categories for How she dies. The issue with my argument with Herlock on what the Inquest is designed to address is that the cumulative information presented to the jury is to be considered when assessing How she dies. But ultimately all that evidence is condensed into a declaration by the jury of either Suicide or Accident or Natural or Wilful murder or Undetermined Causes. In all the Ripper victim Inquests the evidence suggested Wilful Murder to those jurors.

Success?! Are you serious. Never has a point be so thoroughly, absolutely and categorically disproven as your inquest point. It has been dismissed by myself and other numerous times for years. David Orsam tore it to shreds and spat out the bones and yet you are seriously claiming some kind of victory?! I’d suggest that only Trevor compares in the ability to stand absolutely alone on a point and yet still insist that everyone else is wrong and they are right. Give it up Michael, for the sake of everyone’s sanity. You are so wrong on this.

All I can say is…

[Michael W Richards]

To be fair Michael James Brown was called to the Inquest so there appears an anomaly in regards Schwartz not being called. There are a myriad of possible reasons for this as is well documented. We will never know now at this juncture.

I think the point you make above indicates that the people arranging the witnesses for the Inquest felt that the James Browns sighting at 12:45 was more credible. Personally I think James Browns sighting is just the same young couple that Fanny saw on the street, and that missing flower arrangement on her jacket may be the indicator of that. Surely she didnt suddenly produce and attach the maidenfern a minute or 2 before being killed.

But then again, this Inquest allowed a woman to take precious court time stating a case for the deceased being her sister when we know for a fact that Liz Stride had already been identified as the victim prior to the Inquests' start. Some of the witnesses were from Liz Strides close circle.

I see a trend with your posts that indicates that you are content to not know or to not attempt to determine the possible truthfulness of certain stories from these investigations. The reality is I think that investigative work involves making determinations based on the best and most complete evidence available. In the known evidence for the case of Liz Strides murder there is not a single bit of evidence that Israel Schwartz's story had any lasting influence on the investigation into her death and that it can stated factually that he was not asked, or had his story submitted in any format, to the formal Inquest based on the investigations to that point. His story was on Sunday. They could easily have asked him to attend the Inquest. Seems they didnt.

Thats conclusive, what isnt conclusive is Why they didnt. I suggest it likely that he wasnt believed or his story could not be corroborated or proven.

[c.d.]

If you are looking for validation or evidence that is 100% irrefutable you have chosen the wrong hobby. I would think that would have been very apparent by now.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I think cd that pointing out that Abberline did not solve these cases while at the same time recalling his pronouncements on who he believed, or what senior investigators actually knew, should be enough to look at his opinions with caution.

I agree. No one at the time solved the case. Therefore everyone's opinion should be looked at with caution.

But I think it is a mistake to say well if so and so was wrong about this then he must be wrong about that. Or the reverse, so and so was right about that so he must right about that as well.

No one should be citing Abberline as an ultimate authority or anyone else for that matter.

c.d.

The proof is in the pudding cd. Was Israel Schwartz's story, or George Hutchinsons, ever validated in any way by virtue providing any sort of discovery of the witness provided evidence? Do we know Piepman, or BSM was ever found and interviewed? Was the man Hutch referred to thought to be found in the person of Joseph Issacs? If Issacs wasnt there that night, then did they find another Astrkan collared man to question? Did any actual evidence surface from his "believed" witnesses?

I think the stated opinions of most if not all of the senior rank authorities are either just personal hunches or are intentionally misleading.