A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Sunny Delight]

If you cant see that my argument about Hutchinson's possible motives matches precisely with what actually happened to Blotchy and the interpretations about what Wideawake was doing there, then the issues you have are your own. The supposition is just that supposition, but when its based on factual data and you still find it bizarre...well, as I said......

I have no desire for your "truth" if it contradicts known facts or lacks in logic and reason, thats more on the mark. 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. His story provides an assault on the victim just before she is actually murdered, and just feet away from the location. His BSM would be the last person seen with Stride.

But he isnt involved, is he? I said it MUST be because he wasnt believed, because its unthinkable a story with those details would be left out if thought to be, or proven to be, the truth. But he is left out, isnt he? His story didnt matter in the question of how Liz died, did it?

And for that I get "shocking and bizarre?" Providing one of the only reasonable explanations for his absence is cherry picking evidence?

Im sorry, but when perfectly reasonable and supported within know evidence arguments "shock you", I think its clear to see which of us should actually be shocked. But the lack of comprehension of basic ideas is a little troubling for sure.

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.

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

I think reasonable arguments as to Schwartz's lack of attendance at the Inquest can be made on both sides of the issue. But whether or not he should have been called is a moot point. It tells us nothing as to why he was not there. I don't see any way of getting around that conclusion.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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. As per the Police investigation, Schwartz was an important witness and was rightly treated as such. At no point was he ever dismissed. As per the Coroner Inquest, Schwartz was of no use. He couldn’t contribute anything toward any of the stated aims (apart from general background information) so his attendance was absolutely surplus to requirements. Often non-vital witnesses were called at inquests which lead some to repeat the pointless ‘well if A was called then why wasn’t B?’ Those points are never raised simply for the sake of conversation they are ONLY ever raised by someone who is actively seeking to discredit Schwartz.

For a start, it wasn’t the police who decided who gave evidence at the Inquest…it was the Coroner. The inquest only had to establish:

'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.’

Therefore…

Was Schwartz able to identify the deceased as Elizabeth Stride? Answer, no. Was Schwartz able to say how Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no. Was Schwartz able to say when Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no. Was Schwartz able to say where Elizabeth Stride died? Answer, no.

It really couldn’t be clearer. As other non-vital witnesses have been called at inquests we can ask the question “why not Schwartz,” but we can’t assume to know the answer. DB provides 8 possible explanations whilst not claiming any to be the correct one. They are all perfectly possible though. That he was omitted because the police didn’t trust him isn’t though. It can be dismissed without a second thought.

I’d advise anyone to read David Barrat’s two excellent blog posts on this subject where he kicks this nonsense into touch. That the opposite keeps getting repeated over and over again as if no explanation has ever been given only does harm the subject by illustrating a lack of subjectivity.

PS..I’ve just realised that David hasn’t gotten around to putting the two articles on to his new blog yet.

[Michael W Richards]

I do find your conclusions and supposition not only shocking but bizarre. It appears you have form in this regard with your dismissal of Israel Scwhartz as well. I think Wickerman has it right. You have no desire to find the truth, rather you search for anything that ensures confirmation bias- meaning your own interpretation is boosted by cherry picking evidence.

If you cant see that my argument about Hutchinson's possible motives matches precisely with what actually happened to Blotchy and the interpretations about what Wideawake was doing there, then the issues you have are your own. The supposition is just that supposition, but when its based on factual data and you still find it bizarre...well, as I said......

I have no desire for your "truth" if it contradicts known facts or lacks in logic and reason, thats more on the mark. 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. His story provides an assault on the victim just before she is actually murdered, and just feet away from the location. His BSM would be the last person seen with Stride.

But he isnt involved, is he? I said it MUST be because he wasnt believed, because its unthinkable a story with those details would be left out if thought to be, or proven to be, the truth. But he is left out, isnt he? His story didnt matter in the question of how Liz died, did it?

And for that I get "shocking and bizarre?" Providing one of the only reasonable explanations for his absence is cherry picking evidence?

Im sorry, but when perfectly reasonable and supported within know evidence arguments "shock you", I think its clear to see which of us should actually be shocked. But the lack of comprehension of basic ideas is a little troubling for sure.

[Sunny Delight]

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. And that by providing that timing, and with the Sarah Lewis sighting details then widely known, his suggestion that he was on "friendly terms with Mary" and was looking out for her changes the perceived dynamic of the Wideawake Hat Man. The same character that authorities believed warranted that Pardon offer signed Saturday afternoon. He was suspicious, then he wasnt, if you believe Hutch.

So in actuality what you balk at is a possible motivation for providing that story that can be substantiated with the resulting actions and perceptions of the authorities. Its a fact. His story changed the course of the investigation. Briefly albeit. To suggest that he may have done this to achieve the results that were actually achieved is hardly fanciful.

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.

Surely you dont find all fact based suppositions shocking?

I do find your conclusions and supposition not only shocking but bizarre. It appears you have form in this regard with your dismissal of Israel Scwhartz as well. I think Wickerman has it right. You have no desire to find the truth, rather you search for anything that ensures confirmation bias- meaning your own interpretation is boosted by cherry picking evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi cd,

You seem frustrated. Ill address your points....

In the absence of any contradictory evidence, witness accounts, physical or circumstantial evidence, I have said and stand by a declaration that Israel Schwartz story was not considered as "wholly believed" or of any value to Strides Inquest into her death. Why...because his story is not on any records pertaining to the Inquest, his story is not mentioned, submitted in written form, given by proxy, nothing.....and the details of his sighting, IF truly believed, would have made his sighting THE most important of ALL the witness accounts in this murder investigation.

I will try one more time, Michael. There is a huge flaw in your argument which you don't see and I doubt you ever will but let me try and point it out to you.Let's assume for the sake of argument that Schwartz was the most important witness in Stride's case. We will go so far as to assume that he was the most important witness in the entire Ripper investigation. And let's say for good measure he was the most important witness in any case throughout all of history. That still does not tell us why he did not appear. That should be so bleedin' obvious.

In another "Ripper crime" that night, witness Joseph Lawende was later sequestered by the city police, and his statement was not given fully at the request of the authorities. Both these points were made public. They were mentioned at the Inquest. They didnt conceal their interest in him. If the authorities that were assembled to run the Inquest for Stride truly believed that tale given Sunday night they could have done the same thing. Kept him out of sight, notified the Inquest formally that he was being suppressed. Did they? Does his story appear in any way in any known record of the Inquest?

Ask yourself...is it really possible that the authorities believed him Sunday night and just decided to not submit his crucial evidence to the Inquest? To not even reveal they had some evidence still being investigated? My answer would be that its far more probable that they would have entered a statement that says they have a star witness they are working with and they cannot reveal any further information at this time.

They didnt. In fact, they have another witness provide their different recollections of 12:45am viewed activities instead. One that suggests Stride is down the road at 12:45, not being accosted in front of the club.

I realize it frustrates you that I dont see much change required in the conclusion that Israel must not have been believed based on the existing evidence, and there is value in that Abberlines personal opinion means that despite the complete lack of evidence he WAS believed, Abberline believed him anyway. Well Abberlines opinions change, and sometime are wrong...and we have evidence of that too.

But at least on the surface, thats what it is.

[Michael W Richards]

So Hutchinson comes forward in your estimation in order to divert attention from both Blotchy man and Wideawake Man. To do this he claims he was actually Wideawake Man. And you are actually serious about this?

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. And that by providing that timing, and with the Sarah Lewis sighting details then widely known, his suggestion that he was on "friendly terms with Mary" and was looking out for her changes the perceived dynamic of the Wideawake Hat Man. The same character that authorities believed warranted that Pardon offer signed Saturday afternoon. He was suspicious, then he wasnt, if you believe Hutch.

So in actuality what you balk at is a possible motivation for providing that story that can be substantiated with the resulting actions and perceptions of the authorities. Its a fact. His story changed the course of the investigation. Briefly albeit. To suggest that he may have done this to achieve the results that were actually achieved is hardly fanciful.

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.

Surely you dont find all fact based suppositions shocking?

[Kattrup]

As I recall, the "his story is not wholly accepted" comes from a news report where they mention an arrest made following Israel's descriptions to the police. The arrested person was released. I seem to recall, though, that while many have argued the "His story is not wholly accepted" refers to Israel's story (and I too have argued the very same thing as Fiver above), I believe it is presented a bit ambiguously, and the "his" in "his story..." could be referring to the arrested fellow who was released. Perhaps the press dangling the idea that maybe the police are close to an arrest, etc, type thing.

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

The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

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:

A little after ten o'clock last night a man whose behavior was suspicious was arrested by a police-constable in the neighborhood of Commercial-street, and at once taken to the police-station in that thoroughfare, where he was questioned by the inspector on duty respecting his whereabouts on Saturday night and the early hours of Sunday morning. The prisoner, however, readily furnished his name and address, and apparently had no knowledge whatever of the details of the murders. He was discharged upon his statement being verified.

At any rate, the Star the day after wrote:

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts. If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them. There are many people in that district who volunteer information to the police on the principle of securing lenient treatment for their own offences, and there are others who turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough the mark to claim a portion of the reward if the man should be caught, just as one buys a ticket in a lottery. Even where such information is given in good faith, it can rarely be looked upon in the light of a clue.

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.

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
"His story is not wholly accepted". Remember that line?
---------------------------------------------------------------

Abberline didn't fully accept Israel Schwartz' statement. Abberline clearly believed much of what Schwartz said, but disagreed with Schwartz interpretation of events. Schwartz thought that Broadshouldered Man called Pipeman by the name of Lipski and that Pipeman pursued Schwartz. Abberline concluded that "Lipski" was an insult thrown at Schwartz and that Pipeman was not an accomplice of Broadshouldered Man.

As I recall, the "his story is not wholly accepted" comes from a news report where they mention an arrest made following Israel's descriptions to the police. The arrested person was released. I seem to recall, though, that while many have argued the "His story is not wholly accepted" refers to Israel's story (and I too have argued the very same thing as Fiver above), I believe it is presented a bit ambiguously, and the "his" in "his story..." could be referring to the arrested fellow who was released. Perhaps the press dangling the idea that maybe the police are close to an arrest, etc, type thing.

I don't have the news article to hand, otherwise I would check it to make sure I'm not talking a load of rubbish, which I admit does occur when I rely upon my memory, particularly for the fine details like this.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

"His story is not wholly accepted". Remember that line?

Abberline didn't fully accept Israel Schwartz' statement. Abberline clearly believed much of what Schwartz said, but disagreed with Schwartz interpretation of events. Schwartz thought that Broadshouldered Man called Pipeman by the name of Lipski and that Pipeman pursued Schwartz. Abberline concluded that "Lipski" was an insult thrown at Schwartz and that Pipeman was not an accomplice of Broadshouldered Man.

[Fiver]

I believe the template for Hutchinsons description is possibly a local jewish man Joseph Issacs, an Astrakan trim wearing chap from around the area. And it isnt lost on me that in the Stride investigation, there is some question as to who the "Issacs" was that Louis refers to leaving for help with.

"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up." - 1 October 1888 Morning Advertiser

"A member of the club named Kozobrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match, while the latter lifted the body up." - 6 October, 1888 Illustrated Police News

[Fiver]

Im shocked how much what Abberline states seems to carry more weight than contradictory reports about his "witnesses". He said no-one knew who the Ripper was, that only certain high ranking officials knew the truth, and a serial poisoner without any evidence linking him to any murders other than the 2 he poisoned and was being executed for, seemed to him to be the Ripper 15 years after the fact. The facts apparently "dovetailed" for him.

Abberlines credibility is not accepted without question....unless of course you want to use what he claimed regardless.

Abberline should neither be accepted nor rejected without question.

Abberline never said that "only certain high ranking officials knew the truth".

"You can state most emphatically," said Mr. Abberline, "that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago." - 31 March, 1903 Pall Mall Gazette

"To convince those who have any doubts on the point, Mr. Abberline produced recent documentary evidence which put the ignorance of Scotland Yard as to the perpetrator beyond the shadow of a doubt." - 31 March, 1903 Pall Mall Gazette

"No; the identity of the diabolical individual has yet to be established, notwithstanding the people who have produced these rumors and who pretend to know the state of the official mind." - 31 March, 1903 Pall Mall Gazette

You also don't correctly summarize the reasons that Abberline thought George Chapman was the Ripper.

"For instance, the date of the arrival in England coincides with the beginning of the series of murders in Whitechapel; there is a coincidence also in the fact that the murders ceased in London when 'Chapman' went to America, while similar murders began to be perpetrated in America after he landed there." - 24 March, 1903 Pall Mall Gazette

"The fact that he studied medicine and surgery in Russia before he came here is well established, and it is curious to note that the first series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, while the recent poisoning cases were proved to be done by a man with more than an elementary knowledge of medicine." - 24 March, 1903 Pall Mall Gazette

"The story told by 'Chapman's' wife of the attempt to murder her with a long knife while in America is not to be ignored." - 24 March, 1903 Pall Mall Gazette

"The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him." - 24 March, 1903 Pall Mall Gazette

"All agree, too, that he was a foreign-looking man, - but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel." - 24 March, 1903 Pall Mall Gazette

[Sunny Delight]

Totally agree such a “flamboyant “ individual strutting around the east end is verging on ridiculous!!!

No it wasn't. Have a look at Charles Booth's map from 1889 where he lists the areas and colour codes them relating to class. Red areas meant- middle class, well to do. There was plenty of red shaded in on the map. A cursory glance would tell you that.

[Christian]

If "Astrakhan Man" did exist, wouldn't he have caught Sarah Lewis' attention? She described seeing a couple, but nothing about the male was noteworthy enough for her to comment on. It's already been pointed out that such a figure would've stood out like a sore thumb.

Totally agree such a “flamboyant “ individual strutting around the east end is verging on ridiculous!!!

[Wickerman]

...

I think its clear who of the 2 of us should be slightly embarrassed, suggesting Ive doubled back on my suggestion that Hutchinsons story is full of embellishments and details he provides zero proof of....

That's just it Michael, none of us know what proof Hutchinson gave to Abberline, or what Abberline was able to prove to his own satisfaction. Abberline said he interrogated Hutch. but his notes have not survived. That is where we would have found many details that seem to concern you. What I am pointing out is, when we have no examples of proof, in a century old case, we can't argue that none was given. Only that none has survived.

Ive been consistent on my feelings about Hutchinson's statement as far back as I can remember...

Where has it got you Michael?
I do remember you always saying "it was proven that he lied", and my challenge to you then, and now is - show us this proof.
We have yet to see any such proof, which shows to any reader that you believe in things that do not exist.

You believe in the comment by the Star, a comment that was not repeated in any other newspaper, and a comment for which they offered no sources or facts to support their claim. Even their well known competitor the Echo, did not repeat that claim, because it was not true.
In fact, what the Echo did was publish information that told the opposite story - that a number of authorities believed Hutchinson.
You have read this and still you choose to repeat the incorrect claim by the Star.

What this shows is you are not really interested in the truth, you are only interested in what details you can find that fits your theory.