A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Michael W Richards]

Hi cd,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sunny Delight]

I never said anything about "in my estimation" Sunny, I pointed out that a suggestion that Hutchinson may have provided his story so that Astrakan Man would become the last man seen with her and, as such, become the primary suspect. That man was Blotchy until the early evening Monday night. And that by providing that timing, and with the Sarah Lewis sighting details then widely known, his suggestion that he was on "friendly terms with Mary" and was looking out for her changes the perceived dynamic of the Wideawake Hat Man. The same character that authorities believed warranted that Pardon offer signed Saturday afternoon. He was suspicious, then he wasnt, if you believe Hutch.

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

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

Surely you dont find all fact based suppositions shocking?

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

[Michael W Richards]

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

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

I have no desire for your "truth" if it contradicts known facts or lacks in logic and reason, thats more on the mark. As for Israel Schwartz, based on the details in his "story" it is inconceivable that he would be completely out of the Inquest into the death of the Liz Stride... if he was believed. His story provides an assault on the victim just before she is actually murdered, and just feet away from the location. His BSM would be the last person seen with Stride.

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore…

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

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

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

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

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

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

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

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

I have no desire for your "truth" if it contradicts known facts or lacks in logic and reason, thats more on the mark. As for Israel Schwartz, based on the details in his "story" it is inconceivable that he would be completely out of the Inquest into the death of the Liz Stride... if he was believed. His story provides an assault on the victim just before she is actually murdered, and just feet away from the location. His BSM would be the last person seen with Stride.

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

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

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

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

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

[Fiver]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fiver]

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

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

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

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

That strongly supports the idea that Astrakhan man murdered Kelly.

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, sure....

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael W Richards]

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, sure....



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

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

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

[Michael W Richards]

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



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

That strongly supports the idea that Astrakhan man murdered Kelly.

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael W Richards]

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

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

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

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

[JeffHamm]

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



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

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


Compare, Star, same day:




At any rate, the Star the day after wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

And because it’s absent............

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

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

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

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

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

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