Vetting Hutchinson

[harry]

Jon,
Your assertion in post 133 regarding evidence.Like to expand on it?

[Ben]

Both what he was wearing on the night in question, and what he was wearing on the morning he vanished.

That would be prison clothes on both occasions, owing to the reality that he was, y'know, in prison at the time.

But let's delve into fantasy for a moment and pretend that Cusins did report the detail Isaacs wore an Astrakhan coat prior the arrival of Hutchinson's evidence. Abberline would logically have made reference to this detail in his post-interrogation report on Hutchinson's statement. "I believe it to be true, and as it happens a man fitting this description very closely has been reported as suspicious"...would have been an obvious and crucial detail to mention at such a time, and yet we hear nothing on the subject in the report, clearly because Cusins said nothing about the silly, thieving non-entity wearing an Astrakhan coat.

Now, we've had the unconvincing theories relating to Isaacs, along with the woefully tenuous attempts at linking him with Astrakhan, but you told me you were conducting actual research on the man? Any news on that?

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Now, we've had the unconvincing theories relating to Isaacs, along with the woefully tenuous attempts at linking him with Astrakhan, but you told me you were conducting actual research on the man? Any news on that?

Tsk Ben, you haven't been paying attention - Jon told me he was getting Isaacs' arrest warrant just a few posts back. Any day now, I should think.

Hi Jon

If you can see this "factual, evidence", I think it's time you shared it.
Because from where I sit, and I am not the only one who questioned it, there has been no "factual, evidence" submitted.

The evidence is abundant and has been produced on numerous occasions. I have no intention of reiterating it again for you to remain in denial. There is no proof - but that is quite different.

You seen to be confused between the two, which is unfortunate.

Maybe this will help - your 'working hypothesis' that Isaacs was Astrakhan is supported by neither - it is baseless conjecture. At least, I suppose, it doesn't fly in the face of the oft-recorded facts; as with your assertion that the Morning Advertiser wasn't a trade paper.

Hey! Perhaps we're making progress here!

[Garry Wroe]

But let's delve into fantasy for a moment and pretend that Cusins did report the detail Isaacs wore an Astrakhan coat prior the arrival of Hutchinson's evidence. Abberline would logically have made reference to this detail in his post-interrogation report on Hutchinson's statement. "I believe it to be true, and as it happens a man fitting this description very closely has been reported as suspicious"...would have been an obvious and crucial detail to mention at such a time, and yet we hear nothing on the subject in the report ...

At the time Abberline compiled his summary report Astrakhan was the strongest suspect to have emerged throughout the entirety of the Ripper manhunt. Anyone doubting this should recall that Abberline referred to Hutchinson's statement as 'important'. If this anonymous suspect could in turn be linked to a named individual (Isaacs) any such development would have represented a major investigative breakthrough, the details of which Abberline would have been dutybound to pass up the command chain as a matter of urgency. The suggestion that he would have sat on this information until such time as he had proof of the Astrakhan-Isaacs connection is nonsense. His obligation would have been to inform his superiors as events unfolded and provide updates as and when additional intelligence was forthcoming. It is also highly likely that Abberline would have assured his superiors of his intention to reinterview Mary Cusins with a view to eliciting further Isaacs-related information as well as securing her participation in an identification once an arrest was made.

Still, it had been a long day and maybe Abberline couldn't be bothered.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Your assertion in post 133 regarding evidence.Like to expand on it?

Harry.
In what way?

Wow, I got the Quartet tonight.

[Wickerman]

Abberline would logically have made reference to this detail in his post-interrogation report on Hutchinson's statement.

No, not necessary.

[Wickerman]

The evidence is abundant and has been produced on numerous occasions. I have no intention of reiterating it again for you to remain in denial.

Cheating!
You are reading the same script that Ben uses when he is backed into a corner.

There is no proof - but that is quite different.

Huh!
That is quite different from what you told me.
Quote:
"The working hypothesis that he lied; or at very best, exaggerated his tale; is based on actual, factual, evidence.

Ben tells me there is proof, now you tell me there isn't.
But previously you suggested the accusations are based on "factual evidence".

You people are all over the place, like Bats in the headlights.

Lets just have it straight, you all believe he may have lied, and that he may have been discredited, but there is no proof either way.
Now, if you could just sign off on that, then the Astrachan argument, or the need for it at least, will just go away.

[Wickerman]

.... If this anonymous suspect could in turn be linked to a named individual (Isaacs) any such development would have represented a major investigative breakthrough,

Precisely!
And this eventuality first occurred on Dec. 6th, when this long sought for suspect finally surfaced.
Abberline's report of this date would make very interesting reading.

Abberline was not in this position on Nov 12th. The man described by Hutchinson could have been anybody. Abberline cannot inform Swanson until the man is caught and confirmed as the missing tenant.

[Michael W Richards]

Sidebar on this Issacs fellow......there is evidence within witness statements that Louis Diemshitz omitted mentioning a third search party that fateful night, since young Issac Kozebrodksi stated to the press within 1 hour of the body's discovery..that he was sent out for help by Louis,...on his own. That's a third search party which is unmentioned by all the club staff witnesses, ...including Eagle and Diemshitz's venture out. What that implies is that the Issac[s] Louis stated accompanied him wasn't Kozebrodski at all, it was someone named [I]Issacs[/I.

Would it enhance Issacs suspect status for the Kelly murder if its possible he was actually the man Louis left with...and would it be suspicious if we never hear from any witness with club affiliations where this Issacs fellow went when the police were conducting their club search?

Cheers

[Batman]

You people are all over the place, like Bats in the headlights.

Lets just have it straight, you all believe he may have lied, and that he may have been discredited, but there is no proof either way.
Now, if you could just sign off on that, then the Astrachan argument, or the need for it at least, will just go away.

Most European bats are blind. Light has little to no impact on them.

Hutchinson is even considered a suspect his statement is so dodgy.

What we know is that Hutchinson only volunteers his information, 3 days after the murder of MJK and after the inquest DESPITE claiming to be on a friendly terms with her and having seen someone go with her into her room only a few hours before she died (and not seeing him come back out, to add to that). Suddenly after 3 days, after chatting with someone from the doss house, he decides that maybe, just maybe, he might have some information the police could use in relation to his friend's death. What a nice friend eh?

Its interesting and very suspect that following the anti-Semitic noise around Chapman, Eddowes and the Goulston Street Graffiti that Hutchinson just happens to come up with a Jewish suspect of the kind of appearance that borders on the cartoons of blood libel in various publications.

If he was there... and that's a big IF... because there is Jack-all to corroborate it, he may have come forward because Lewis saw him and reported it at the inquest. If he didn't show up and she identified him as the man outside, then its curtains for him if he gets found.

So the question he has to answer is what is he doing for so long outside Miller's Court?

So let's say he walks the 10km to Whitechapel or whatever distance and decides to hang out at Miller's Court to see if he can get a bed with MJK for the night. He waits. Lewis sees him as she goes in (he omits seeing her). No one comes out. He goes off for a few hours more walking around London. He never saw MJK that evening. He didn't see anyone at all. So he makes up the story to get out of a problem.

Blotchy goes free.

Now, that's an IF... because apart from his 24 hour Marathon walks... there is even reason to believe he is just yet another attention seeker who is following up on the stories on others, of which there are plenty for the murder of MJK alone. Nothing in his description to say he knows what MJK looks like or where she lives. He testimony is like that of those who are attention seekers.

Now... forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn't Hutchinson's story change? Doesn't he describe different events during his versions of what happened? Doesn't that discredit him?

[Wickerman]

Now... forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn't Hutchinson's story change? Doesn't he describe different events during his versions of what happened? Doesn't that discredit him?

Not altogether sure what you are getting at, but perhaps you would like to compare his two statements, line by line?
Look over this link.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=297301&postcount=536

[harry]

Jon,
In response to your post 140,any way you can.
For instance,Evidence must have an established provenance before it can be used as such. It cannot be PROVED that Kelly met Astrakan,but Hutchinson can give evidence that they did.Where is the provenance?
I can give evidence in court that I am alone in my unit writing this,but I cannot prove it.Evidence but no provenance,but acceptable in court.
Whats this quartet you write of?

[Batman]

Not altogether sure what you are getting at, but perhaps you would like to compare his two statements, line by line?
Look over this link.
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=536

What about the bit where he claimed to have gone into the court and stood outside her window?

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/88.html

[Garry Wroe]

Abberline was not in this position on Nov 12th. The man described by Hutchinson could have been anybody. Abberline cannot inform Swanson until the man is caught and confirmed as the missing tenant.

By extension, then, Jon, you would also argue that Dew, when in pursuit of Crippen in 1910, simply raided the petty cash, ducked out of his office, boarded the SS Laurentic, crossed the Atlantic, disembarked in Canada and there arrested his suspect, all without informing his superiors because the man he pursued halfway around the world could not be 'confirmed as the missing' Crippen?

Likewise, do you also imagine that the men heading the Great Train Robbery investigation were kept in a state of ignorance as to the activities of their subordinates until Ronnie Biggs and party were under lock and key?

As I've explained previously, the police here in the UK do not operate in the way you appear to imagine. There is a rigid command structure wherein decisions are made by those in charge and implemented by those further down the pecking order. Since the decision making process is (or should be) guided by up-to-date intelligence, all relevant information is passed up the command chain as a matter of course. Your notion, therefore, that Abberline would have sat on potentially case-breaking information until such time as Isaacs was in custody is utterly nonsensical. But then, no more so than your contention that Astrakhan remained a suspect even though Hutchinson's story had been discredited courtesy of Dr Bond's time of death estimation in the Kelly case.

[Michael W Richards]

Jon,

As anyone who has read anything substantial knows about these cases, like yourself, George Hutchinson isn't a trusted witness. Period. There are many reasons to set him aside, beginning with his unsubstantiated statement that he knew Mary Kelly at all, let alone by name. Then you have his reluctance to come forward with his obviously embellished story for four days. Four Days Jon...Four. Anyone who knows even a little about friendships would consider a 4 day delay in coming forward with a story that might have great impact on the investigation into the most gruesome murder in all the unsolved murders file a travesty...re-setting the last person seen with Mary for one. A friend wouldn't hesitate in coming forward, perhaps with some promise of protection, but anyone who cared about Mary even casually with the kind of information he provided would be compelled to bring it to the police. Anyone who might seek validation of his claims might also have presented himself to the Inquest organizers, knowing that others that also knew Mary might corroborate his casual friendship with her.

She might have mentioned him to someone if she knew him...she didn't. He might have talked with her on the street sometime and had that encounter witnessed by courtyard witnesses who knew Mary beyond question. No-one came forward after his statement to tell the police they knew of the friendship. He might have mentioned seeing what he claimed to someone else the very next day, someone who he could then use to substantiate his story before the press accounts revealed anything about the investigation. He provide no-one, and no-one came forward to claim that he told them.

The over-riding reality here is that George came forward after the Inquest was concluded, after the courtyard witnesses who knew Mary well had dispersed and gone home, and with a delay which would certainly inhibit any possibility of then finding the man in his story.

He tells the story when anyone who knew Mary wouldn't see him, and after a delay which would almost guarantee that the suspect in his story would be uncatchable.

So...the real question about George is why the hell he bothered to come from out of the woodwork and provide such an imaginative and obviously embellished story?

That question is what Myself, Ben and others are dealing with,...why bother doing this... and for Ben, and others, it places suspicion on him perhaps being Wideawake Man and seeking to explain his attentions on that courtyard in the middle of the night...as seen by Sarah Lewis.

He is suspicious, his motives are suspect and his story is far fetched if only by the degree of detail he noted from across the street in near darkness.

Cheers