A closer look at George Hutchinson

[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.

[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]

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.]

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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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!!!

[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.

[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

[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]

"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.

[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

[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.

[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?