A closer look at George Hutchinson

[c.d.]

George Hutchinson must have been credible if Abberline thought he was...

That would constitute an Argument from Authority which is a Logical Fallacy. Far different from simply saying I respect the opinion of Abberline and I give it weight. And as has been stated before we don't know the extent of his belief or if he eventually came to change his mind.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

Sunny, you can interpret what youve read in whatever way makes you feel comfortable, and you can suggest that simply following the evidence and known data is going down a rabbit hole all you like. The fact is that you are defending a man whose story was reported as being discredited, a man who cannot be proven to have known Mary at all, someone who claims to be standing where a man was seen standing, and reported as such, days earlier, and someone who provided zero proof he was anywhere near Romford on that day.

So...you are just taking him at his word...which is probably the minimal effort you care to expend while studying the crime. Just accept stuff. Not a good policy for an investigator, but youve already proven its not something you excel at. Interpreting evidence is essential,.. the real story isnt just in the actual evidence, its also how it fits together. But Hutchinson didnt really give evidence anyway did he? He submitted a statement.

Some, like you, think its evidence concerning "the story". Any Investigator can clearly see that providing a minutia laden detailed description 4 days after the crime and after an Inquest into that crime had completed is not representative of someone whose motive was to aid the investigation. If he had that information all weekend, he effectively negated any investigative value it would have by waiting 4 days. So....its abundantly clear he was not motivated by a true desire to help the police catch his "friends" killer. He gave that statement for other reasons...Ive suggested one or 2.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Whoa, Michael, hold your horses a minute.
Your suggestion George & Mary were friends is the very basis of your claim that he should have gone to police as soon as he heard about the murder.

Thats not what I said or inferred Jon, I said IF Hutchinson was a friend as he had represented himself, he would have come forward immediately. See, this is why interpretation is vital, you misread or misunderstood something and immediately pounced on it thinking you caught me double speaking. When in fact Im expressing my own disbelief of that aspect of his story, in fact I dispute that his overall intentions by telling this story...had anything to do with a "friend" helping an investigation...that boat had clearly sailed after 4 days. Hence, suggesting he was a friend of hers when juxtaposed with this then unacceptable delay of days before reporting it, is most likely fabrication.

But now, above, you claim Hutchinson cannot be proven to have known Mary AT ALL.

I think now you might see where you made a wrong turn on the point being made. The whole point of the statement is to infer my mistrust and disbelief in his suggestion that he knew Mary from several casual meetings and sometimes gave her money.

Aren't you just a little embarrassed, when you show everybody that you don't actually have a viable theory to sell?

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.Ive been consistent on my feelings about Hutchinsons statement as far back as I can remember, Im sure if you doubt that you could find a number of posts that state that very position.

So.....yeah. Bad call Jon.

If someone misreads or misinterprets something I post Im glad to straighten them out, but the manner in which you assumed something... that you can now see was an error on your part,... then attacked, is tacky Jon.

[Michael W Richards]

George Hutchinson must have been credible if Abberline thought he was...

That would constitute an Argument from Authority which is a Logical Fallacy. Far different from simply saying I respect the opinion of Abberline and I give it weight. And as has been stated before we don't know the extent of his belief or if he eventually came to change his mind.

c.d.

Actually cd we have a precedent to review when assessing how much weight Abberlines "opinions" should carry. With Israel Schwartz. He gave Israels story equal credence to Hutchs, and yet Schwartz's story is not connected to the Inquest into Liz's death in any way, shape or form. We have him stating that none of the authorities, his colleagues, actually knew anything about who was committing these crimes. That is despite the fact he knew some had indeed voiced semi-authoritarian views on the extent of their knowledge about the killer. Much later he has a revelation that a man who gets hanged for poisoning women was actually the Ripper from years back, he somehow missed the connective evidence then...and now, it "dove-tails" together for him.

I think the cumulative information available on Abberline suggests he was a true policeman rather than a politician, that he had a special sort of paternal interest in helping the community who helped him rise find a killer amongst them, that he and his posse did loads of footwork, (same kind of efforts he showed with the Cleveland Street investigations)...even returning to Marys room Saturday morning to sieve the ashes a second time with Reid and others. Desire to help and experience with the area and the people are a given with him. Committed and a respectable officer, no doubt.

What isnt a given is exactly how astute he was. Nor how National Defense and Intelligence directors were placed in charge of investigating gory murders of street women. Surely, since some had responsibilities that made them a part of the Parnell Commission hearings which was concurrent with these crimes, National matters would supercede localized prostitute murders. Not here though.

[c.d.]

Actually cd we have a precedent to review when assessing how much weight Abberlines "opinions" should carry. With Israel Schwartz. He gave Israels story equal credence to Hutchs, and yet Schwartz's story is not connected to the Inquest into Liz's death in any way, shape or form.

That is a non sequitur since we don't know why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. Basically what you are saying is that Abberline was wrong in his opinions since they don't match yours.

It is possible that he was right on some things and wrong on others. In other words, he was human and had to rely on the evidence available to him. Overall, he seems to have a pretty good track record and was respected by his peers.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Actually cd we have a precedent to review when assessing how much weight Abberlines "opinions" should carry. With Israel Schwartz. He gave Israels story equal credence to Hutchs, and yet Schwartz's story is not connected to the Inquest into Liz's death in any way, shape or form.

1. That is a non sequitur since we don't know why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. Basically what you are saying is that Abberline was wrong in his opinions since they don't match yours.

2. It is possible that he was right on some things and wrong on others. In other words, he was human and had to rely on the evidence available to him. Overall, he seems to have a pretty good track record and was respected by his peers.

c.d.

1. Not sure why people spin things back suggesting its just my "opinion". What I said relates to the fact that despite Abberline later down the road supporting Israel Schwartz's statement...stating that he believes it...it is NOT part of the formal review of any evidence related to the death of Liz Stride at her Inquest. 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. Yet, the content of the story would be crucial evidence if true, it would establish the victim with an assailant just before the murder. Yet...not included. "His story is not wholly accepted". Remember that line?

I said what I said because Abberlines support of the statement is simply him expressing an opinion that a statement given that was not worthy of submission to the Inquest, was to him, believable. Despite the fact that apparently no-one connected to the Inquest thought so too.

I think your second statement is fair, and only serves to illustrate that the opinions themselves are not necessarily correct, and his expressed belief in both Schwartz and Hutchinson seems to be contrary to the records of the formal investigations status given to those witnesses.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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....

[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.