Vetting Hutchinson

[harry]

Fisherman,
It rained heavily the night Stride was killed.Numerous people were not deterred from venturing out on that occasion.It rained heavily the night Kelly was killed.Cox w ent out several times.Lewis w as out and about.Others w ere reported out.Why should the weather be a problem for Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
It rained heavily the night Stride was killed.Numerous people were not deterred from venturing out on that occasion.It rained heavily the night Kelly was killed.Cox w ent out several times.Lewis w as out and about.Others w ere reported out.Why should the weather be a problem for Hutchinson?

I am not saying that it would be a problem as such. And he had to deal with it.

But would he deal with the rain by walking endless hours on the streets in it, or by sheltering from it?

What´s your own best guess, Harry?

[John G]

I don't think the police had any evidence that Hutchinson lied and, as I've noted before, they quickly lost interest in Blotchy, assuming they were that interested in the first place, does that mean Cox lied? I mean, she also disappears from the enquiry after giving her evidence as does Schwartz, probably. And what happened to PC Smith, James Brown, William Marshall?

Also, if he was fabricating a story why not mention Lewis, as she gave her evidence before him? Surely it would make his account seem more believable?

[harry]

Fisherman,
What is my experience,is that of the two very dissimilar weather conditions,as stated by you,a person three days after the experience , would be very conscious of w hether it was on a calm or stormy evening that he stood in Dorset Street.
Now my best guess is,as you should know by now, that Hutchinson was in Kelly's room,out of the weather,in the early hours of that morning.So yes I agree w ith you,out of the weather was preferable.A better guess than the day being wrong.
Suppose it was someone else leaving Crossingham's at 2.30AM that morning,that Lewis saw.W here do you guess he would be going in the rain?

[Wickerman]

I don't think the police had any evidence that Hutchinson lied and, as I've noted before, they quickly lost interest in Blotchy, assuming they were that interested in the first place, does that mean Cox lied? I mean, she also disappears from the enquiry after giving her evidence as does Schwartz, probably. And what happened to PC Smith, James Brown, William Marshall?

Hi John.
Exactly so, in fact Hutchinson's story received more attention in the press, all the way out to the 24th, subsequent to his first appearance on the 12th, contrary to the usual claim that he was dropped.
Lawende, Schwartz, Smith, etc. receive comparatively less attention after their first appearance.

Also, if he was fabricating a story why not mention Lewis, as she gave her evidence before him? Surely it would make his account seem more believable?

If he was fabricating his story, common sense dictates that he keep it simple, down to earth and believable.
The less detail the better, a liar cannot take the risk that the police will investigate and find fault with his story.
A liar knows to be vague, quite the opposite to what we have in George Hutchinson.

[Batman]

What happened to Cox and Blotchy is that they get forgotten about in light of Hutchinson, hence the dissertation on CB called The Man who Shielded JtR http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...roo-hutch.html

Galloway reports a Blotchy character to a PC who determines they are looking for a different man. We have no record Blotchy was found. We have no witnesses seeing him leave either.

We know that Lawende was a witness used, but failed, to ID Sadler. It is unlikely to be the same witness that Swanson refers too in his marginalia as Lawende was a city witness whereas Schwartz was the met witness. So Schwartz can get included easily.

However the question is why do many seem to get dropped? The answer is that the investigation appears to have a taken a new direction as it split. Abberline/Hutchinson drop out of the news and that side of the investigation grounds down to a halt as the Astrakhan man clue is followed. Abberline goes onto other business and eventually joins a detective agency.

Then we have Swanson/Cox and some others who talk about bushwhacking places where someone could go out unnoticed, which seems to focus on the Jewish workers quarters. Within that they appear to unearth a few suspicious people and probably most of them had mental issues, much like Kozminski or of the type Bond seems to profile. So it seems they didn't use witness testimony after unearthing these individuals and instead decided to watch them. However Swanson, if right, eventually did use one, Schwartz or Lawende, to ID a man who was suspected of being JtR.

If it where modern times they would have every possible witness from Tabram onwards looking at photos of everyone involved. It seems this task wasn't possible back then due to the sheer scale of it and the speed at which it evolved. If even the investigators are moving on, its hard not to believe the witnesses didn't also.

[Wickerman]

However the question is why do many seem to get dropped? The answer is that the investigation appears to have a taken a new direction as it split. Abberline/Hutchinson drop out of the news and that side of the investigation grounds down to a halt as the Astrakhan man clue is followed. Abberline goes onto other business and eventually joins a detective agency.

In reality, suspects do not get dropped. The trail may run cold, but once wanted, only the discovery of the man will remove him from police interest.

Are we really being asked to think that because the police could not find a suspect within the first ten(?) days, that they didn't bother any more?
Is that what some people think police work is all about, just looking for the flavour of the month?

I think the fact a suspect is no longer in the news gives the impression to some that the police lost interest. This is a false assumption.

The police continued their secrecy well into November, apparent with the case of Annie Farmer, where several media outlets make the same observation:

"...The police are extremely reticent,..."

"... but the police, whilst observing their customary reticence as to details, freely expressed the opinion that the man who made the attack upon the woman Farmer yesterday is not the individual who has hitherto been the terror of the locality."

"Considerable excitement was caused throughout the East-end yesterday morning by a report that another woman had been brutally murdered and mutilated in a common lodging-house in George-street, Spitalfields, and in consequence of the reticence of the police authorities all sorts of rumours prevailed."

This reticence of police also remained in place regarding the earlier suspects. The press can only report what they see and hear on the streets. If nothing is observed to indicate continued investigation then we read nothing, but that does not mean the police have dropped any suspect.

[Fisherman]

Also, if he was fabricating a story why not mention Lewis, as she gave her evidence before him? Surely it would make his account seem more believable?

It´s my kind of logic anyhow, John, so I agree.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
What is my experience,is that of the two very dissimilar weather conditions,as stated by you,a person three days after the experience , would be very conscious of w hether it was on a calm or stormy evening that he stood in Dorset Street.
Now my best guess is,as you should know by now, that Hutchinson was in Kelly's room,out of the weather,in the early hours of that morning.So yes I agree w ith you,out of the weather was preferable.A better guess than the day being wrong.
Suppose it was someone else leaving Crossingham's at 2.30AM that morning,that Lewis saw.W here do you guess he would be going in the rain?

If you think that Hutchinson was inside the room with Kelly´s corpse for a number of hours, then that would keep him out of the rain. Absolutely.

But it would also carry immense risks with it. As such, I don´t think that he would choose avoiding getting wet over getting out of harm´s way. But that´s just how I see things.

At the end of the day, though, even if he DID shelter from the rain in Kellys room, then he would have been quite conscious of the weather conditions. And why would he feed Abberline the very odd lie that he spent a couple of hours walking the streets in abominable weather? Why not say that he sheltered in a nearby doorway or something such?

[harry]

Fisherman,
Risky yes,but the ripper was a risk taker.
Why feed Aberline a lie?Whether it was out in the rain or in shelter somewhere,the lie could not be proven.Hutchinson was in Kelly's room.the only witness was dead.At least,that is my opinion.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I will not venture further into this business

Yeah, you will.

Of course you will.

You already have, more or less. All I need to do is write a lovely long post - longer even that yours, maybe? - illustrating the weaknesses inherent in your verbose and confrontational post, and that'll be you pretty much hooked, won't it? I just look forward to your usual "Oh, I said I wasn't going to involve myself in this dirty business but now Ben has said this, which means I will simply have to involve myself in a back-and-forth exchange lasting several years."

Crossmere was a fun distraction, I get that, but I'm afraid it's straight back to Hutchinson for you. For ever, perhaps?

I feel a monster post brewing...

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Risky yes,but the ripper was a risk taker.
Why feed Aberline a lie?Whether it was out in the rain or in shelter somewhere,the lie could not be proven.Hutchinson was in Kelly's room.the only witness was dead.At least,that is my opinion.

The Ripper was a risktaker, for sure. He had to be. But that does not necessarily mean that he risked things unneccesarily, does it?

What I am saying is that there was no need to tell Abberline that he walked the streets all night. Walking the streets all night would be a stupid thing to do. Nobody in his right mind would do so, since it was raining cats and dogs.

That is why I conclude that if Hutchinson walked the streets all night, then he did so on the previous night - when the weather was ideal for walking the streets.

It all fits this way.
We get an explanation to why Hutchinson was not discarded but instead only graded down dramatically, interestwise: because he saw Astrakhan on the night before.
We get an explanation as to why Hutchinson never saw Lewis - she arrived the next night.
We understand why the papers say that the police were embarrased.
We get things in line with Dew´s approximation.
We understand why nobody at the time had a bad word to say about Hutchinson, instead commenting on how steadfast he was.
We can see why Kelly was not drunken stupid as Hutchinson saw her, although she should perhaps have been after the meeting with Blotchy.
And we understand why Ben writes such a nice and courteous post to me - because he knows that Hutchinson has been identified, and very nearly totally cleared from any accusations against him by now. He can be fit into another, much less sinister frame, where he fits like a glove.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



Yeah, you will.

Of course you will.

You already have, more or less. All I need to do is write a lovely long post - longer even that yours, maybe? - illustrating the weaknesses inherent in your verbose and confrontational post, and that'll be you pretty much hooked, won't it? I just look forward to your usual "Oh, I said I wasn't going to involve myself in this dirty business but now Ben has said this, which means I will simply have to involve myself in a back-and-forth exchange lasting several years."

Crossmere was a fun distraction, I get that, but I'm afraid it's straight back to Hutchinson for you. For ever, perhaps?

I feel a monster post brewing...

Hi, Ben.
Bye, Ben.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
To suggest that Hutchinson was a day out in his recollection, is going against reality surely.?
He made a statement, that he saw Kelly on the morning of the 9th November, not the 8th..we cannot know for certain if he was telling porkies or not, but until proven that he was, surely we have to go with form, not speculation.?
Its the same with the identity of George Hutchinson.
We have the claim, that he was one George William Topping Hutchinson, who actually did exist, no other person has come forward to state that in 127 years..
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi.
To suggest that Hutchinson was a day out in his recollection, is going against reality surely.?
Regards Richard.

Not at all, Richard. He was a man who worked irregular hours and who was subjected to sleep deprivation, and that is exactly the kind of thing that may well make you mistake the days.
It also offers by far the simplest and best explanation to what happened.