A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Sunny Delight]

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.

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

I have speculated that these resulting actions might well be the reason he comes in at all, and the reason for his statement. Because... that is what happened as a result. As a sign off, I have never suggested anything other than that about Hutch, and any suggestions that I have, are as spurious as the dismissals of valid arguments Ive presented.

You are not to the only one here to boldly accuse me of "having contradicted myself more than once", something which is patently false and provably so, but neither you nor anyone else has provided one shred of evidence to support their erroneous claims. Then I get pissed off that people blatantly lie about things here and I try and rip a shred off them verbally. And Ive been suspended for that.

You would think the ones who falsely accuse you of something would deserve a verbal whippin.....but, not in my experience.

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?

[Michael W Richards]

The forum is for debate, not too shove your hypothesis down other people's throats. You have contradicted yourself more than once during the debate and as I dont think we both have anything further of value to add I suggested we leave it to the readers to make up their own minds on the validity of the arguments or scenarios presented.

However if you could can you take me through exactly what you are trying to say because it does appear awfully convoluted to me but as I have it:

Hutchinson comes forward to the Police with a **** and bull story which subsequently you feel was discredited(based on the one newspaper report). He did this because either he was the man described by Sarah Lewis and wanted to cover for the real killer- his accomplice and sent the Police on a wild goose chase to find a non existent foreign looking man with a Jewish appearance. Or he did it because he was the killer and was concerned that Lewis had identified him(by stating he was stout and wore a wideawake hat). Or even he made the whole thing up and Blotchy was the killer, Hutchinson lied for his 5 minutes of fame.

Or alternatively:

Hutchinson did meet Kelly at 2am and followed her and an accomplice back to Millers court where he is seen by Sarah Lewis- she sees him where he said he was, when he said he was. She even stated he looked like he was waiting on someone. Hutchinson knows Kelly pretty well having been in her company before and giving her a few shillings. They aren't ever described as friends in contemporary sources nor does Hutchinson label himself as such. After the murder which he hears or reads about over the weekend he thinks about going to the police. However he like many others before and since is reticent to come forward. On Sunday morning at Petticoat Market he thinks he sees the man again prompting him to tell a fixed duty Policeman. Unsure if that information actually got to CID he spends much of Monday at work thinking on it again. He goes back to his lodging house where he confides in a friend. The friend tells him he must go to the Police. Hutchinson just needing that extra push agrees and at 6pm walks into the station to give his information.

Added to that the fact Abberline believed him, we have nothing official that he was ever discredited and Walter Dew years later- and admittedly incorrect in some recollections- stated he felt Hutchinson was an honest witness but mistaken on the night he had seen Kelly.

Lastly, maybe just maybe we are both wrong and Hutchinson was discredited like you say- but not because of any nefarious reasons but merely because on subsequent investigation the Police realised that Hutchinson likely had the wrong night. He had met Kelly like he said but had got mixed up.They could never prove that, but Dew remembered Hutchinson as an honest witness and personally felt he had just misremembered the night in question. He may have felt that for a reason.

Which leaves us with Blotchy man. Admittedly a far better fit to the other witness descriptions of the murderer but the singing of Mary Kelly for an hour poses a problem....

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.

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

I have speculated that these resulting actions might well be the reason he comes in at all, and the reason for his statement. Because... that is what happened as a result. As a sign off, I have never suggested anything other than that about Hutch, and any suggestions that I have, are as spurious as the dismissals of valid arguments Ive presented.

You are not to the only one here to boldly accuse me of "having contradicted myself more than once", something which is patently false and provably so, but neither you nor anyone else has provided one shred of evidence to support their erroneous claims. Then I get pissed off that people blatantly lie about things here and I try and rip a shred off them verbally. And Ive been suspended for that.

You would think the ones who falsely accuse you of something would deserve a verbal whippin.....but, not in my experience.

[c.d.]

Im not aware of any obvious flaws in what I post cd,

Now THAT is something we can both agree on.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

But I am shocked at how often the bleedingly obvious and most probable answers are somehow eluding you and some others.

Yeah, it surprises me too that some people can't see the obvious flaws in their thinking.

c.d.

Im not aware of any obvious flaws in what I post cd, in fact anything I post has corroborative facts associated with it. One can assess whether I am following a logical path or instead, as you accuse me of, creating a conclusion based on something that doesnt exist. Which would be...... like basing an argument that has Israel Schwartz as a trusted Star witness in the Stride investigation, despite the fact that he wasnt found anywhere in the official records? Or like claiming Hutchinson was a trusted witness in an ongoing investigation into Mary Kellys murder just because Abberline said weeks later he thought he was telling the truth?

This isnt rocket science. You have evidence that is official. You have evidence that is not. You have evidence that is circumstantial, and you have evidence that is corroborated, and as such, more trustworthy. You have evidence about the characters themselves, about the particular moment in time that is being scrutinzed, info about the area, friends and known associates. You have geographical data. You have pre-events local histories. You have opinions, and conclusions and observations.

The only way you can safely make any determinations about specific evidence is how it fits with other established evidence. What it suggests. An example would be coming across a man holding a knife and standing over someone who had just been stabbed. No-one else is visible in the area. Based on just that evidence, do you know for a fact it was that knife and that man that was used to attack the victim on the ground?...No. But the evidence does suggest that is the most probable answer. Thats how you construct a workable theory......accumulate all that is known, and find within the most probable answer. When I do that and find I have come to a different conclusion than you, I have to assume that the most probable reason for you not to see or grasp the logic of an idea is because you have no idea all the factors I used to make that most probable determination. Or you have used similar data and for whatever reason cant connect that to the idea presented to you.

-A man holding a knife
-No one else in sight
-Standing over the victim
-Obvious cut or puncture wound(s) on victim

Just on that small amount of data,..... without knowing if the man and victim knew each other, or where the knife came from, or whether they were both there at the exact time the stabbing happened, of if these 2 people or anyone else was seen by any other witness with a view of that spot, or whatever else you might want to know to determine what happened, it appears most probable that the man with the knife used it to stab or cut the victim on the ground. If I was a policeman, I would hold him for further questioning.

Something I might expect as rebuttal from you would be...well, since we dont know if the actual killer left before being seen, and we dont know if the man holding the knife just pulled it out of the victim, and we dont know if the victim fell into the knife by accident, there would be no evidence or reason to suspect the man holding the knife is most probably the killer. We would need the other questions answered to know whether he was likely the killer or not, so just take his contact information and let the man go on his way.

Although I would agree with the idea that all the questions must be answered before any firm conclusions can be made, I believe that the evidence such as it is is good enough to hold the man on suspicion. My preliminary conclusion, barring any contradictory evidence that may yet surface in the discovery aspect of the investigation, would be to hold him as person of interest until that additional information can be determined. But I believe that he most probably was the killer, based on just the face value evidence of the sighting.

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.

[c.d.]

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.

As you argue, it very well could have been as you believe that the police considered him a blatant liar and completely disbelieved his story. That is entirely possible. But since we don't know it is also possible that there could be some very simple and reasonable other explanations such as he simply did not make himself available. Or maybe he was sick or perhaps Abberline told them talking to this guy is like pulling teeth because of the language barrier and his short time on the scene. Now I consider all of those reasonable explanations. If you do not then that is fine. But because you say you KNOW why he did not appear you are going to have to show how you were able to eliminate any other possible cause. Can you do that?

Your thinking involves so many if A then B arguments. In this case, Schwartz did not testify and therefore it proves that the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation can be the one you favor. I think that is sloppy thinking.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

My long winded point was.....often there is ample evidence to make some preliminary conclusions about certain events or actions. If you ignore the obvious and defer to the speculative...then we will differ.

[Michael W Richards]

But I am shocked at how often the bleedingly obvious and most probable answers are somehow eluding you and some others.

Yeah, it surprises me too that some people can't see the obvious flaws in their thinking.

c.d.

Im not aware of any obvious flaws in what I post cd, in fact anything I post has corroborative facts associated with it. One can assess whether I am following a logical path or instead, as you accuse me of, creating a conclusion based on something that doesnt exist. Which would be...... like basing an argument that has Israel Schwartz as a trusted Star witness in the Stride investigation, despite the fact that he wasnt found anywhere in the official records? Or like claiming Hutchinson was a trusted witness in an ongoing investigation into Mary Kellys murder just because Abberline said weeks later he thought he was telling the truth?

This isnt rocket science. You have evidence that is official. You have evidence that is not. You have evidence that is circumstantial, and you have evidence that is corroborated, and as such, more trustworthy. You have evidence about the characters themselves, about the particular moment in time that is being scrutinzed, info about the area, friends and known associates. You have geographical data. You have pre-events local histories. You have opinions, and conclusions and observations.

The only way you can safely make any determinations about specific evidence is how it fits with other established evidence. What it suggests. An example would be coming across a man holding a knife and standing over someone who had just been stabbed. No-one else is visible in the area. Based on just that evidence, do you know for a fact it was that knife and that man that was used to attack the victim on the ground?...No. But the evidence does suggest that is the most probable answer. Thats how you construct a workable theory......accumulate all that is known, and find within the most probable answer. When I do that and find I have come to a different conclusion than you, I have to assume that the most probable reason for you not to see or grasp the logic of an idea is because you have no idea all the factors I used to make that most probable determination. Or you have used similar data and for whatever reason cant connect that to the idea presented to you.

-A man holding a knife
-No one else in sight
-Standing over the victim
-Obvious cut or puncture wound(s) on victim

Just on that small amount of data,..... without knowing if the man and victim knew each other, or where the knife came from, or whether they were both there at the exact time the stabbing happened, of if these 2 people or anyone else was seen by any other witness with a view of that spot, or whatever else you might want to know to determine what happened, it appears most probable that the man with the knife used it to stab or cut the victim on the ground. If I was a policeman, I would hold him for further questioning.

Something I might expect as rebuttal from you would be...well, since we dont know if the actual killer left before being seen, and we dont know if the man holding the knife just pulled it out of the victim, and we dont know if the victim fell into the knife by accident, there would be no evidence or reason to suspect the man holding the knife is most probably the killer. We would need the other questions answered to know whether he was likely the killer or not, so just take his contact information and let the man go on his way.

Although I would agree with the idea that all the questions must be answered before any firm conclusions can be made, I believe that the evidence such as it is is good enough to hold the man on suspicion. My preliminary conclusion, barring any contradictory evidence that may yet surface in the discovery aspect of the investigation, would be to hold him as person of interest until that additional information can be determined. But I believe that he most probably was the killer, based on just the face value evidence of the sighting.

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.

[Sunny Delight]

You are admittedly generous in your assessment of possible valid reasons George Hutchinson waited 4 days to come forward. Since none of what he said can be proven by any other source or statement......the fact Sarah said she saw someone there was already established before he came in, so she doesnt validate his statement later on, he might have just used her established Wideawake Man for his own purposes.

No proof of anything he says. No corroboration. 4 days late coming in. Only witness who claimed to see specifically Mary Kelly out after 1:30am and before dawn. Ridiculously detailed suspect description considering the brief time, dark night and distance from the alleged "Astrakan Man".

There are cumulative reasons to suspect Hutchinsons rationale for coming in at all wasnt as represented. Then add......report in local paper as early as Nov 15....that same week, 2 days after his statement was given, that his story was discredited.

I can only point out the lake is there, but I cant make you swim in it. As you wish Sunny.

The forum is for debate, not too shove your hypothesis down other people's throats. You have contradicted yourself more than once during the debate and as I dont think we both have anything further of value to add I suggested we leave it to the readers to make up their own minds on the validity of the arguments or scenarios presented.

However if you could can you take me through exactly what you are trying to say because it does appear awfully convoluted to me but as I have it:

Hutchinson comes forward to the Police with a **** and bull story which subsequently you feel was discredited(based on the one newspaper report). He did this because either he was the man described by Sarah Lewis and wanted to cover for the real killer- his accomplice and sent the Police on a wild goose chase to find a non existent foreign looking man with a Jewish appearance. Or he did it because he was the killer and was concerned that Lewis had identified him(by stating he was stout and wore a wideawake hat). Or even he made the whole thing up and Blotchy was the killer, Hutchinson lied for his 5 minutes of fame.

Or alternatively:

Hutchinson did meet Kelly at 2am and followed her and an accomplice back to Millers court where he is seen by Sarah Lewis- she sees him where he said he was, when he said he was. She even stated he looked like he was waiting on someone. Hutchinson knows Kelly pretty well having been in her company before and giving her a few shillings. They aren't ever described as friends in contemporary sources nor does Hutchinson label himself as such. After the murder which he hears or reads about over the weekend he thinks about going to the police. However he like many others before and since is reticent to come forward. On Sunday morning at Petticoat Market he thinks he sees the man again prompting him to tell a fixed duty Policeman. Unsure if that information actually got to CID he spends much of Monday at work thinking on it again. He goes back to his lodging house where he confides in a friend. The friend tells him he must go to the Police. Hutchinson just needing that extra push agrees and at 6pm walks into the station to give his information.

Added to that the fact Abberline believed him, we have nothing official that he was ever discredited and Walter Dew years later- and admittedly incorrect in some recollections- stated he felt Hutchinson was an honest witness but mistaken on the night he had seen Kelly.

Lastly, maybe just maybe we are both wrong and Hutchinson was discredited like you say- but not because of any nefarious reasons but merely because on subsequent investigation the Police realised that Hutchinson likely had the wrong night. He had met Kelly like he said but had got mixed up.They could never prove that, but Dew remembered Hutchinson as an honest witness and personally felt he had just misremembered the night in question. He may have felt that for a reason.

Which leaves us with Blotchy man. Admittedly a far better fit to the other witness descriptions of the murderer but the singing of Mary Kelly for an hour poses a problem....

[Paddy Goose]

Good morning Nichael,

... the lake is there, but I cant make you swim in it. ...

Thre's nothing for Sunny to swim in because your lake is bone dry. If Hutch came forward to lie, why? Who was he covering for? Or did he kill her?

I'm taking a wild guess, Michael -- you actually don't have a position. Am I right?

And I'm OK with that if you don't have a position. Just please say so.

[Michael W Richards]

This isn't Hollywood although your hypothesis would certainly make a good thriller with all it's smoke and mirrors, lies and deceit.

As I posted previously:

Or alternatively Hutchinson did meet Kelly at 2am and followed her and an accomplice back to Millers court where he is seen by Sarah Lewis- she sees him where he said he was, when he said he was. She even stated he looked like he was waiting on someone. Hutchinson knows Kelly pretty well having been in her company before and giving her a few shillings. They aren't ever described as friends in contemporary sources nor does Hutchinson label himself as such. After the murder which he hears or reads about over the weekend he thinks about going to the police. However he like many others before and since is reticent to come forward. On Sunday morning at Petticoat Market he thinks he sees the man again prompting him to tell a fixed duty Policeman. Unsure if that information actually got to CID he spends much of Monday at work thinking on it again. He goes back to his lodging house where he confides in a friend. The friend tells him he must go to the Police. Hutchinson just needing that extra push agrees and at 6pm walks into the station to give his information.

The readers can decide whose hypothesis is more likely. At this stage you have offered nothing to alter my view and I yours. So best to leave it at that.

You are admittedly generous in your assessment of possible valid reasons George Hutchinson waited 4 days to come forward. Since none of what he said can be proven by any other source or statement......the fact Sarah said she saw someone there was already established before he came in, so she doesnt validate his statement later on, he might have just used her established Wideawake Man for his own purposes.

No proof of anything he says. No corroboration. 4 days late coming in. Only witness who claimed to see specifically Mary Kelly out after 1:30am and before dawn. Ridiculously detailed suspect description considering the brief time, dark night and distance from the alleged "Astrakan Man".

There are cumulative reasons to suspect Hutchinsons rationale for coming in at all wasnt as represented. Then add......report in local paper as early as Nov 15....that same week, 2 days after his statement was given, that his story was discredited.

I can only point out the lake is there, but I cant make you swim in it. As you wish Sunny.

[Sunny Delight]

Im not that complicated, nor are my posts..but for posterity's sake, and if youll note in my reply to John, and I have no idea how people miss obvious points ....but I dont believe George Hutchinson's statement and I dont believe he actually knew Mary as well as he intimated. Maybe in passing. I dont believe any true friend of someone...even casual friend, would not come forward immediately if they heard something terrible had happened to them. On a night when he claims he talked to her himself. So his 4 day delay reveals that HE DID NOT COME IN MONDAY TO OFFER A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE TO HELP THEM FIND HER KILLER. Ergo, he does nothing to establish that he indeed was her friend, the delay negates any such notion. He gave that statement, 4 days late, because of another reason. It was already too late for that description to be of any real value to the authorities on Monday night. Maybe he wanted to clear Wideawake from suspicions, maybe he wanted to insert a suspect who was known in the area into the mix with Mary, maybe he was Wideawake and spying on Mary or someone, and he thought that in case someone could ID him...like Maybe Sarah, since she did report she saw the man there..he should come forward first and claim he was there for "friendly" reasons. Maybe he was Wideawake Hat man, and maybe he was the Accomplice that the police thought he might have been. His story, the friend spin, downplays that idea that Wideawake was there with malicious intent, and thats likely all he was after.

Hutchinsons story isnt validated by Sarah Lewis at all, Hutchinson's places himself at a location and at a time where a witness had already stated for the record, days earlier, that she had seen Wideawake Hat loitering. His story seems intent on assuming the identity of that person seen by Sarah, but neither "validates" the other.

And we have a statement in the local press by November 15, 1888, that Hutchinsons story was indeed discredited. We have nothing official that says Hutchinsons suspect was still being investigated after Nov 15, so careful how you use "official" if you are characterizing someones point as using "unofficial" information. You and others suggesting Hutchinson was important after that date is also using "unofficial" information.

This isn't Hollywood although your hypothesis would certainly make a good thriller with all it's smoke and mirrors, lies and deceit.

As I posted previously:

Or alternatively Hutchinson did meet Kelly at 2am and followed her and an accomplice back to Millers court where he is seen by Sarah Lewis- she sees him where he said he was, when he said he was. She even stated he looked like he was waiting on someone. Hutchinson knows Kelly pretty well having been in her company before and giving her a few shillings. They aren't ever described as friends in contemporary sources nor does Hutchinson label himself as such. After the murder which he hears or reads about over the weekend he thinks about going to the police. However he like many others before and since is reticent to come forward. On Sunday morning at Petticoat Market he thinks he sees the man again prompting him to tell a fixed duty Policeman. Unsure if that information actually got to CID he spends much of Monday at work thinking on it again. He goes back to his lodging house where he confides in a friend. The friend tells him he must go to the Police. Hutchinson just needing that extra push agrees and at 6pm walks into the station to give his information.

The readers can decide whose hypothesis is more likely. At this stage you have offered nothing to alter my view and I yours. So best to leave it at that.

[c.d.]

But I am shocked at how often the bleedingly obvious and most probable answers are somehow eluding you and some others.

Yeah, it surprises me too that some people can't see the obvious flaws in their thinking.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

You can say "we dont know why", but thats just a cowards way of avoiding saying that obviously ....by the fact of its omission... it had no perceived value in the discussions.

Apparently what is "obvious" to you is not so obvious to the rest of us lesser mortals.

"A cowards way???" Oh, please.

And again, I have begged and pleaded with you as have others on this board. If you know for a fact why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, please, please tell us. It is extremely unfair of you to withhold that information as it could be so useful.

c.d.

Its right there in front of you cd, it always has been. Israel Schwartz was determined by the people organizing the Inquest into the death of Liz Stride to have no importance in the investigation. His absence, and the lack of any records that suggest he was supressed, sequestered, or had submitted his evidence in written form, confirms that statement.

You think I purposely insult you by suggesting a lesser intelligence, I have never done any such thing. But I am shocked at how often the bleedingly obvious and most probable answers are somehow eluding you and some others. Your not just sitting on a fence undecided, youve decided something that is provably incorrect...that Israel Schwartz's statement had value in the formal investigation of how Liz dies. Based on what exactly....Abberlines casual stated belief in the statement weeks later? There is not one record from that Inquest that ever mentions Israel Schwartz.

Which is very telling, since his story would provide a "last person seen" with Liz, and of his assaulting her. A few feet from, and a few minutes from, the time someone slices her throat. EMINENTLY IMPORTANT WHEN ASSESSING HOW SHE DIED...if true. But undeniably, unequivocally, irreversibly, and absolutely it is NOT in any known Inquest records AT ALL.

I said coward because I believe that to not accept what is obvious, logical, reasonable and actually visible within the known formal evidence is just a reluctance to decide. To take a stand. I take all the information I can get, sift through it, and make decisions. Are they always right? No. Who is? But I can weigh evidence well enough and follow trails. There is in this case, an inevitable truth. Then there is the other "truth" that you and others say may be correct. The formal evidence says your wrong, and it says Abberline backed a witnesses statement that the authorities didnt think warranted any inclusion into Inquest records.

Israels story wasnt included because it wasnt believed, or was proven false. Who cares why....it was not used at all formally, beyond initially taking it from him when his translator gave it to the police Sunday night. Period.

Pretending he might still have been used officially anyway is simply delusional.

[Michael W Richards]

OK so now I am confused by the point you are making. On the one hand you castigate me for defending someone who took 4 days to come forward with information on what you term his 'friends' murder. Then in the next breath you state that I am defending someone who can't be proven to have known her at all. This is what I mean by your hypothesis becoming confusing and convoluted.

I am also not taking Hutchinson's word on face value. I think I and others like me can be confident that Hutchinson is somewhat vindicated by Sarah Lewis. I also believe that Abberline's interrogation and questioning of Hutchinson where he believes his story has some importance. One press report stating his story had been subsequently discredited is not particularly useful on it's own. It merits further investigation. We have nothing official to state Hutchinson was discredited and dismissed.

You continue to look for conspiracy. None exists.

Im not that complicated, nor are my posts..but for posterity's sake, and if youll note in my reply to John, and I have no idea how people miss obvious points ....but I dont believe George Hutchinson's statement and I dont believe he actually knew Mary as well as he intimated. Maybe in passing. I dont believe any true friend of someone...even casual friend, would not come forward immediately if they heard something terrible had happened to them. On a night when he claims he talked to her himself. So his 4 day delay reveals that HE DID NOT COME IN MONDAY TO OFFER A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE TO HELP THEM FIND HER KILLER. Ergo, he does nothing to establish that he indeed was her friend, the delay negates any such notion. He gave that statement, 4 days late, because of another reason. It was already too late for that description to be of any real value to the authorities on Monday night. Maybe he wanted to clear Wideawake from suspicions, maybe he wanted to insert a suspect who was known in the area into the mix with Mary, maybe he was Wideawake and spying on Mary or someone, and he thought that in case someone could ID him...like Maybe Sarah, since she did report she saw the man there..he should come forward first and claim he was there for "friendly" reasons. Maybe he was Wideawake Hat man, and maybe he was the Accomplice that the police thought he might have been. His story, the friend spin, downplays that idea that Wideawake was there with malicious intent, and thats likely all he was after.

Hutchinsons story isnt validated by Sarah Lewis at all, Hutchinson's places himself at a location and at a time where a witness had already stated for the record, days earlier, that she had seen Wideawake Hat loitering. His story seems intent on assuming the identity of that person seen by Sarah, but neither "validates" the other.

And we have a statement in the local press by November 15, 1888, that Hutchinsons story was indeed discredited. We have nothing official that says Hutchinsons suspect was still being investigated after Nov 15, so careful how you use "official" if you are characterizing someones point as using "unofficial" information. You and others suggesting Hutchinson was important after that date is also using "unofficial" information.

[c.d.]

You can say "we dont know why", but thats just a cowards way of avoiding saying that obviously ....by the fact of its omission... it had no perceived value in the discussions.

Apparently what is "obvious" to you is not so obvious to the rest of us lesser mortals.

"A cowards way???" Oh, please.

And again, I have begged and pleaded with you as have others on this board. If you know for a fact why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, please, please tell us. It is extremely unfair of you to withhold that information as it could be so useful.

c.d.