A closer look at George Hutchinson

[JeffHamm]

...
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.
...

Hi Michael,

I've not heard of this before (or I don't recognize it at least). Can you tell me where this information about the local Astrakan wearing Joe can be found?

Thanks.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

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.

You trying to redefine who the prime suspect was doesn't change the facts. Wideawake Hat Man, not Blotchy, was the prime suspect until Hutchinson made his statement.

Charles Warren was considering a pardon for accomplices on October 9, which predates the Kelly murder by about a month.

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.

If Astakhan man was a real person named Joe that disappeared the night of Kelly's murder, 3 days before Hutchison mentioned him to the police, then that strongly supports the idea that Astrakhan man murdered Kelly.

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.

If your claims about Astrakhan Man are correct, then Hutchinson's statement is a big help to the investigation. It means Astrakhan Man is a real person who disappeared right after the murder and gives the police a detailed description of Astrakhan Man. It means Hutchinson is probably Wideawake Hat Man. It makes those two men the most likely suspects for being the Ripper.

So where is your evidence for Joe Astrakhan?

[Fiver]

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.

Another possibility is that Pipeman interpreted "Lipski" as Broadshouldered Man accusing Schwartz of being a murderer, leading to Pipeman pursuing Schwartz. IIRC, there's a newspaper account of a man pursuing someone he thought was the Ripper that matches the timing of Schwartz' account.

[JeffHamm]

Another possibility is that Pipeman interpreted "Lipski" as Broadshouldered Man accusing Schwartz of being a murderer, leading to Pipeman pursuing Schwartz. IIRC, there's a newspaper account of a man pursuing someone he thought was the Ripper that matches the timing of Schwartz' account.

Hi Fiver,

Oh, that's an interesting idea I've not heard before. Personally, the report about a "man pursued", has always struck me as a conflation between the Schwartz event and the search by the club members along Fairclough that occurred shortly later, where the search members are calling for police help, and there's no reason to presume they were running in a single group but could have spread out a bit, looking as if one pursues the other. Obviously I need not be correct, but I would think if there were witnesses to such a pursuit of a potential JtR we would hear more of it in the press or official documents. Mind you, my thinking that doesn't mean we would.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

Arguing over the provisions and requirements of The Coroner's Act will do absolutely nothing to resolve the question of why Schwartz was not called. Whether or not he was required by the Act to be there makes no difference. All we know is that he was not. We do not know why.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Arguing over the provisions and requirements of The Coroner's Act will do absolutely nothing to resolve the question of why Schwartz was not called. Whether or not he was required by the Act to be there makes no difference. All we know is that he was not. We do not know why.

c.d.

Perhaps because he was a ghost and simply disappeared into the wind; metaphorically speaking of course.

He never existed as Schwartz in the first place.


RD

[c.d.]

He never existed as Schwartz in the first place.

If you believe that is the case why did "Schwartz" interject himself into the investigation in the first place?

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

He never existed as Schwartz in the first place.

If you believe that is the case why did "Schwartz" interject himself into the investigation in the first place?

c.d.

That is the most excellent question...and I believe the answer potentially holds the key to the entire case.

I am currently working on an answer for that question, and I am relieved that someone has finally asked that specific question because it will give some validation to what I am planning to submit in due course.


Watch this space as they say



RD

[JeffHamm]

Arguing over the provisions and requirements of The Coroner's Act will do absolutely nothing to resolve the question of why Schwartz was not called. Whether or not he was required by the Act to be there makes no difference. All we know is that he was not. We do not know why.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

While I fully agree that understanding the coroner's act doesn't answer the question of why Schwartz doesn't testify, I think fully appreciating the implications of its requirements is necessary to realise just how wide and diverse the possible "why's" can be! Understanding it opens up a large number of possibilities that otherwise might get overlooked by being presumed to be out of the running. To understand what we know requires us to understand what we do not.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

Are there any parallels to be drawn between Hutchinson and Schwartz?

Wouldn't it be a revelation if Schwartz was the Ripper....and Hutchinson....was also the Ripper.

The Ripper being a talented actor who had the ability to fool everyone.

There's an element of theatrics with both Schwartz and Hutchinson....and I wonder if that's more significant than we realise?





RD

[Sunny Delight]

Are there any parallels to be drawn between Hutchinson and Schwartz?

Wouldn't it be a revelation if Schwartz was the Ripper....and Hutchinson....was also the Ripper.

The Ripper being a talented actor who had the ability to fool everyone.

There's an element of theatrics with both Schwartz and Hutchinson....and I wonder if that's more significant than we realise?





RD

What?

[c.d.]

I am currently working on an answer for that question, and I am relieved that someone has finally asked that specific question because it will give some validation to what I am planning to submit in due course.

Watch this space as they say

I shall keep this space under constant 24 hour surveillance. Maybe even 25 hours.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi c.d.,

While I fully agree that understanding the coroner's act doesn't answer the question of why Schwartz doesn't testify, I think fully appreciating the implications of its requirements is necessary to realise just how wide and diverse the possible "why's" can be! Understanding it opens up a large number of possibilities that otherwise might get overlooked by being presumed to be out of the running. To understand what we know requires us to understand what we do not.

- Jeff

Agreed, Jeff. I was certainly not trying to diminish the importance of the Act only warn against using its provisions to arrive at a conclusion not warranted by the Act.

c.d.

[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?

I suppose I should have been more specific in that I understand that the Nature of the Death isnt the same as the precise Cause of Death. HOW in the Inquest vernacular of the period, refers the Categorization of the death,... be it Accidental, Suicide, Wilful Murder, Manslaughter..etc. The manner in which the death is caused deals with the specific catalyst for the loss of life,... gunshot, strangulation, being run over with a cart and horse, fell on pavement, slit throat, poisoning...etc.

They are both components of the Inquest goals, however the mandate is really on the HOW in these cases. To determine if any criminal activity was connectd with it.

The whole point I am making is that the story Israel Schwartz gave on Sunday night would be relevant to determining the HOW the injuries occur. If she is seen being assaulted just before she is being cut, that does suggest a Wilful act.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

I've not heard of this before (or I don't recognize it at least). Can you tell me where this information about the local Astrakan wearing Joe can be found?

Thanks.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

A man named Joseph Issacs. From the Manchester Evening News Dec 10;

"The police are continuing their inquiries into the antecedents of Joseph Isaacs, said to be a Polish Jew, who is now in custody on a charge of watch stealing. Mary Cusins, the deputy of a lodging-house in Paternoster Row, near Dorset-street, and Cornelius Oakes, a lodger, state that the conduct of the prisoner was frequently strange. Although he had a violin and four or five other musical instruments, he was never known to play any of them. Oakes says the prisoner used often to change his dress. He heard him threaten violence to all women above 17 years of age."

London Evening News, Dec 8;

"The prisoner, who was brought up in the custody of Detective-sergeant Record, H Division, is the man who was arrested in Drury-lane on Thursday afternoon on suspicion of being connected with the Whitechapel murders. It transpired during the hearing of this charge that it was committed at the very time the prisoner was being watched as a person "wanted." The prosecutor, Levenson, said that the prisoner entered his shop on the 5th instant, with a violin bow, and asked him to repair it. Whilst discussing the matter, the prisoner bolted out of the shop, and witness missed a gold watch belonging to a customer. The watch had been found at a pawn-shop. To prove that the prisoner was the man who entered the shop, a woman named Mary Cusins was called. She is deputy of a lodging-house in Paternoster-row, Spitalfields, and said that the prisoner had lodged in the house, as a single lodger, for three or four nights before the Dorset-street murder - the murder of Mary Janet Kelly, in Miller's-court. He disappeared after that murder, leaving the violin bow behind. The witness on the house to house inspection gave information to the police, and said she remembered that on the night of the murder she heard the prisoner walk about his room. After her statement a look out was kept for the prisoner, whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat. He visited the lodging-house on the 5th, and asked for the violin bow. It was given to him and the witness Cusins followed him to give him into custody as requested. She saw him enter Levenson's shop, and almost immediately run out, no constable being at hand. Detective Record said that there were some matters alleged against the prisoner, which it was desired to inquire into."

Since Hutchinson gave a description that seems to fit a man staying in the immediate area of Marys lodgings, one who suddenly disappears the night she is killed, I believe the possibility that Hutchinsons statement was intended to direct the police attentions to that man as a suspect. Because I dont believe that his actual motivation was a desire to help the police quickly find his "friends" butcher, I think his information, even if true, was likely useless after such a delay being brought forward.

And as I noted, there were changes made to the investigators attentions, no longer was Wideawake a possible accomplice, just good ol' Hutchy looking out for Mary, and it would appear they lost interest in even talking to Blotchy Face, judging by the Galloway sighting a few days later.

There was a suggestion that a Pardon had been considered earlier in these crimes, Considering and actually Issuing are not the same thing. Wideawake Man is surely the impetus for the offer being made into law, but as an Accomplice. Not the killer. The killer is likely the last person she is seen with if she went indoors and wasnt seen coming back out...and that was Blotchy.