A closer look at George Hutchinson

[The Rookie Detective]

Arguing over the provisions and requirements of The Coroner's Act will do absolutely nothing to resolve the question of why Schwartz was not called. Whether or not he was required by the Act to be there makes no difference. All we know is that he was not. We do not know why.

c.d.

Perhaps because he was a ghost and simply disappeared into the wind; metaphorically speaking of course.

He never existed as Schwartz in the first place.


RD

[c.d.]

Arguing over the provisions and requirements of The Coroner's Act will do absolutely nothing to resolve the question of why Schwartz was not called. Whether or not he was required by the Act to be there makes no difference. All we know is that he was not. We do not know why.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Another possibility is that Pipeman interpreted "Lipski" as Broadshouldered Man accusing Schwartz of being a murderer, leading to Pipeman pursuing Schwartz. IIRC, there's a newspaper account of a man pursuing someone he thought was the Ripper that matches the timing of Schwartz' account.

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

[Fiver]

However, we also know that the police were sceptical of the more interpretative details of Schwartz's account, and they were of the opinion it was far more likely that Broad Shoulders shouted Lipski at Schwartz, not Pipeman, which breaks the connection between Broad Shoulders and Pipeman as acting together. That would in turn question whether or not Pipeman was "chasing" Schwartz, or simply also leaving the scene quickly and perhaps in the same direction.

Another possibility is that Pipeman interpreted "Lipski" as Broadshouldered Man accusing Schwartz of being a murderer, leading to Pipeman pursuing Schwartz. IIRC, there's a newspaper account of a man pursuing someone he thought was the Ripper that matches the timing of Schwartz' account.

[Fiver]

No, the Primary Suspect would be the last person seen WITH her, and thats Blotchy. Wideawake Hat Man, (which has been posted so many times I dont see how people still are clueless).....was the impetus for the Accomplice pardon.

You trying to redefine who the prime suspect was doesn't change the facts. Wideawake Hat Man, not Blotchy, was the prime suspect until Hutchinson made his statement.

Charles Warren was considering a pardon for accomplices on October 9, which predates the Kelly murder by about a month.

I said....if basic reading is a trial for any of you please get some help with it and save me some time...there was a man who fits the basic description Hutchinson gave living in that area ...Astrakan collared. That man moved into the immediate area a few days before Marys murder, and disappeared the night of it. His given name was Joe.

If Astakhan man was a real person named Joe that disappeared the night of Kelly's murder, 3 days before Hutchison mentioned him to the police, then that strongly supports the idea that Astrakhan man murdered Kelly.

Might Hutchinson's story been given to implicate this man or someone else known locally? Cause it sure as hell wasnt to help the investigation 4 days late.

If your claims about Astrakhan Man are correct, then Hutchinson's statement is a big help to the investigation. It means Astrakhan Man is a real person who disappeared right after the murder and gives the police a detailed description of Astrakhan Man. It means Hutchinson is probably Wideawake Hat Man. It makes those two men the most likely suspects for being the Ripper.

So where is your evidence for Joe Astrakhan?

[JeffHamm]

...
I said....if basic reading is a trial for any of you please get some help with it and save me some time...there was a man who fits the basic description Hutchinson gave living in that area ...Astrakan collared. That man moved into the immediate area a few days before Marys murder, and disappeared the night of it. His given name was Joe.
...

Hi Michael,

I've not heard of this before (or I don't recognize it at least). Can you tell me where this information about the local Astrakan wearing Joe can be found?

Thanks.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, you are wrong. The Inquest is into How the victim dies.....suicide, accident, manslaughter, murder.....the CAUSE of DEATH would be the mechanics...massive loss of blood due to the severance of 1 of the major arteries in her throat.

Thats why I said if Israel told the truth then he can help answer HOW she dies, the incident suggests since she is being manhandled just before her death she did not take her own life, or receive the cut accidentally. It suggests a likelihood of Wilful murder. So Israels story would be pertinent.

And because it’s absent............

Ok, so you’re now arguing with the Coroner’s Act of 1887? The purpose of a Coroner’s Inquest is set out paragraph 4 (3). Have a look.

“who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and if he came by his death by murder and manslaughter, the persons, if any, the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories to the murder.?

Now if you read the above quote, dismiss the fact that you don’t like it, and just study the content you will clearly see where you have gone wrong. Your claim is that the ‘how’ means whether it was murder or manslaughter. Whereas the actual text, deciphered by the skill of reading, clearly tells us that the inquests 4 aims are the who, how, when and where the deceased came by his death..

The part about whether it was murder or manslaughter follows the word AND. The word AND means ‘in addition too.’ So the passage is very, very clear. The purpose is to discover the who, how’s when and where AND, in addition, if they died as a result of murder or manslaughter.

If you dispute something so obvious Michael I really don’t know how it can be explained more clearly.

And as Jeff has just pointed out…this is a Hutchinson thread.

[JeffHamm]

That is correct and has been commented on before:
The Star, Oct. 1st:



It’s grammatically possible to read “the man” as referring to the Hungarian, and thus conclude that Israel Schwartz was disavowed by the police.

That, I think, is mistaken. Schwartz is not referred to as making a statement, he tells a “story”.
In the paper, the arrested make a statement, their statement is then evaluated by the police and they’re either released or kept for further inquiries. In the paragraph above, it seems clear that the man arrested is held and not released - and sentence about his statement is the logical follow-up and explanation of why he is still arrested.


Compare, Star, same day:




At any rate, the Star the day after wrote:

So, again one can use this to argue that Schwartz was discredited. Or one can read it and think he was not, or perhaps only in part by some police officers at Leman street.
Always remembering Swanson, who specifically wrote the police had no reason to doubt Schwartz’ story, and considering whether that assessment should be considered of lesser importance than rumouresque mentions in a sensationalist paper like The Star.

Thanks for that Kattrup! I often find keeping track of all the news reports to be like herding cats! I don't have anything resembling an organised collection of the news, which is my own fault. I had forgotten that there are the two references to stories not fully believed by the police, and the first that you mention seems to reference the man arrested, and the last one (Oct 2nd of the Star I believe), seems to point to Schwartz. While I say "seems", I personally think it's a stretch to interpret either of them otherwise having now read both again.

With regards to Schwartz, though, we are lucky to have record of how the police questioned the reliability of Schwartz's account. Schwartz's statement was, in short, that Broad Shoulders and Pipeman were a pair, and that Pipeman's name may have been Lipski. We know that as the police went on to look into all the Lipski families in the area, so they followed up on Schwartz's statement as he initially told it. I believe that line of investigation was still ongoing throughout the Stride Inquest, which also tells us that the police had not discredited Schwartz entirely (they didn't determine he made the whole thing up).

However, we also know that the police were sceptical of the more interpretative details of Schwartz's account, and they were of the opinion it was far more likely that Broad Shoulders shouted Lipski at Schwartz, not Pipeman, which breaks the connection between Broad Shoulders and Pipeman as acting together. That would in turn question whether or not Pipeman was "chasing" Schwartz, or simply also leaving the scene quickly and perhaps in the same direction.

And it is easy to see how the press might have gotten wind of the fact that there were some doubts about aspects of Schwartz's statement, even if they didn't get the details as to what it was that was doubted. If the man arrested was Pipeman, as I believe has been suggested, then once Pipeman was cleared (how we do not know, but presumably he could account for his presence, and where he was at critical times, etc), the police doubts would have been justified.

On the other hand, I would think if actual Pipeman were arrested and identified, it would put an end to the investigation of the local Lipski families as there would be no reason to spend time and resources on that line of inquiry. So I suspect someone was arrested who fit the description of either Pipeman or Broad Shoulders, and was then shown not to be that person. The police continue to investigate Lipski families as that is how Schwartz made his statement (though there are indications that through questioning his confidence was reduced but it was not retracted) even though they had doubts as to his interpretation of the events. They would do this because that is good police work - they may doubt his interpretation, but they had not proved it false, so you follow the lead until you find something or the lead gets exhausted.

Anyway, none of that sheds much light on why Schwartz isn't called to testify at the inquest. The one bit, though, is that given the police were still following up on the Lipski family line of inquiry indicates it was not because they had discredited him. If they had, they would have stopped spending money and time following up a discredited line of investigation.

With that said, I realise I'm drifting away from the thread topic here, and also I've said as much on various occasions in the past, so I'll return us all to the Hutchinson show. Film at 11.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Again, this has been explained to you Michael and shouldn’t be difficult to grasp. The HOW Liz died is another way of saying the Cause Of Death. The Doctor decides on the cause of death not a man who saw her having a scuffle with a man minutes earlier. I really can’t see the Doctor asking Schwartz opinion on the subject….can you?

No, you are wrong. The Inquest is into How the victim dies.....suicide, accident, manslaughter, murder.....the CAUSE of DEATH would be the mechanics...massive loss of blood due to the severance of 1 of the major arteries in her throat.

Thats why I said if Israel told the truth then he can help answer HOW she dies, the incident suggests since she is being manhandled just before her death she did not take her own life, or receive the cut accidentally. It suggests a likelihood of Wilful murder. So Israels story would be pertinent.

And because its absent............

[Michael W Richards]

Before Hutchinson's statement, the prime suspect was Wideawake. After that, Wideawake was a prime suspect and Hutchison was probably Wideawake.



So you are saying Astakhan man was a real person? And that he left without notice 3 days before Hutchison mentioned him to the police?

That strongly supports the idea that Astrakhan man murdered Kelly.

No, the Primary Suspect would be the last person seen WITH her, and thats Blotchy. Wideawake Hat Man, (which has been posted so many times I dont see how people still are clueless).....was the impetus for the Accomplice pardon.

I said....if basic reading is a trial for any of you please get some help with it and save me some time...there was a man who fits the basic description Hutchinson gave living in that area ...Astrakan collared. That man moved into the immediate area a few days before Marys murder, and disappeared the night of it. His given name was Joe.

Sorry...how many Joes was Mary seeing simultaneously? Oh yeah, 2. And before anyone says "..but you said that the Astrakan Man that Hutch describes is the same man that is having an affair with Mary....I categorically did not say that. I cited coincidental information.

For the record, I dont believe this Joe fella was for certain the Astakan Man that Hutchinson describes, but it is interesting that he is also named Joe and lives around the corner from Mary and disappears the night she is killed.

Might Hutchinson's story been given to implicate this man or someone else known locally? Cause it sure as hell wasnt to help the investigation 4 days late.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, sure....



Interesting perspective Herlock, so you imagine that the Inquest......which was held to determine How Liz Stride dies, wouldnt be interested to know if someone was seen assaulting her minutes before her fatal injury...or that you would imagine these things are run independent of each other, when the actual facts are that the Inquest is organized using the data collected to that point from THE POLICE INVESTIGATION INFORMATION.Thats where the witnesses who appear are discovered.

Its really revealing repeating what folks like you post. Nonsense.

Again, this has been explained to you Michael and shouldn’t be difficult to grasp. The HOW Liz died is another way of saying the Cause Of Death. The Doctor decides on the cause of death not a man who saw her having a scuffle with a man minutes earlier. I really can’t see the Doctor asking Schwartz opinion on the subject….can you?

[Michael W Richards]

It is because your hypothesis makes little sense that I use the word 'bizarre'. You provide no motive for Hutchinson. Instead you look at the result of his evidence and work backwards. That is a nonsensical way to approach such things. You do the same with Schwartz. Herlock and CD above pretty much sum up much of my thinking on that issue so no point in regurgitating that.

We don't know who Hutchinson was so neither of us can speak of 'truths' or 'facts' when discussing him. My thoughts on Hutchinson have been laid out in previous posts. I have nothing further to add.

Ok. Im so glad on that last line, Ive explained the bleeding obvious so much for you and the fact that you still dont get it that you should toss in the towel. You cannot interpret or envision logical progression from an event, fine. Would have saved me a lot of typing had you just admitted that initially.

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, sure....

When something has been explained a thousand times with actual recorded evidence attached to prove the point (evidence which comes from law and not opinion btw) it’s simply inexcusable that self-serving statements like the following can STILL get posted:

”As for Israel Schwartz, based on the details in his "story" it is inconceivable that he would be completely out of the Inquest into the death of the Liz Stride... if he was believed.”

That someone can’t tell the difference between the stated aims of a Coroner’s Inquest and those of a Police investigation is rather a sad state of affairs. They are not the same. A witness can be useful to the Police but not the Coroner.

Interesting perspective Herlock, so you imagine that the Inquest......which was held to determine How Liz Stride dies, wouldnt be interested to know if someone was seen assaulting her minutes before her fatal injury...or that you would imagine these things are run independent of each other, when the actual facts are that the Inquest is organized using the data collected to that point from THE POLICE INVESTIGATION INFORMATION.Thats where the witnesses who appear are discovered.

Its really revealing repeating what folks like you post. Nonsense.

[Fiver]

I never said anything about "in my estimation" Sunny, I pointed out that a suggestion that Hutchinson may have provided his story so that Astrakan Man would become the last man seen with her and, as such, become the primary suspect. That man was Blotchy until the early evening Monday night.

Before Hutchinson's statement, the prime suspect was Wideawake. After that, Wideawake was a prime suspect and Hutchison was probably Wideawake.

Its also a fact that a man who moved in around the corner earlier that same week then vacated his premises without notice the night Mary is killed, leaving behind personal belongings, was know to wear an astrakan coat as described by Hutchinson. I would imagine the odds of several men in that immediate area having that same Astrakan trim wouldnt be very high. So its also possible Hutchinson description was intending to suggest this local man known for that style of dress was the one with Mary.

So you are saying Astakhan man was a real person? And that he left without notice 3 days before Hutchison mentioned him to the police?

That strongly supports the idea that Astrakhan man murdered Kelly.

[Fiver]

So there are no more misrepresentations.....I believe Hutch did not come forward Monday night because he was trying to help authorities find Marys killer. I also believe that much if not all of his story isnt real recollections but more recent constructions. That IF he had indeed been Marys legitimate friend he would have come in 3 or 4 days earlier,... had the friendship" been real. But his description of Astrakan Man had no investigative value 4 days late. Therefore, there is another reason he did it. Some results of his statement are that Blotchy is essentially let off the hook as the primary suspect....which leads to someone matching Blotchy description being ignored by a local policeman a few days later. His story changes the dynamic of Wideawake Man, if believed, because Sarahs sighting of Wideawake Hat man, given days earlier to the police, led Warren to sign what is his last official document issuing the Pardon for Accomplices Saturday afternoon. Wideawake was a suspicious person and was considered a potential accomplice...before Hutch.....but after Hutch.....Wideawake is just old Hutchie looking out for his pal Mary. In reality, for all we know Hutch was Wideawake Hat Man and he was an accomplice.

Hutchinson gave his statement on the night of November 12. The inquest took place earlier that day. We don't know if Hutchnison attended the inquest. We don't know if he spoke to the police before or after the evening papers came out. Either way, we know Hutchinson chose to contact the police, as opposed to Robert Paul, who had to be tracked down by the police and forced to testify.

We do know that based on inquest testimony that Wideawake hat, not Blotchy, is the last person known to have been seen near Kelly before she was killed. Hutchinson's statement means that based on timings, Hutchinson is probably Wideawake Man - the prime suspect.

His statement effectively removes 2 potential suspects from the immediate investigation. Wideawake, and Blotchy.

That is an incorrect assessment. Sarah Lewis' testimony had already removed Blotchy as the prime suspect. Hutchinson's testimony did not remove Wideawake Man as a suspect and meant that Hutchinson was the most likely person to be Wideawake Man. It did add Astrakhan Man as another prime suspect, assuming the police believed Hutchinson.

The statement does not tell us if Hutchinson was trying to help solve the case, trying to provide an innocent explanation for his presence that night, or looking for his 15 minutes of fame. Any or all of those could be true. It doesn't tell us if Astrakhan Man was actually there, if he was someone that Hutchison was trying to frame, or if Astrakhan Man was just made up by Hutchinson.