Soliciting or night attack.

[Monty]

Tut tut Ben.

Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was most emphatically and irrefutably discredited

Now that is very misleading.

I see we need a Podcast debate on this.

The article you cite holds no reference to any person in authority, Sox is quite correct. Your citing is not evidence supporting your claim above.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Sox,

Unless we're willing to accept that the police suffered from collective simultaneous amnesia, and that independent press reports just happened to lie about the "authorities'" treatment of the account subsequent to its first appearance, Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was most emphatically and irrefutably discredited. It just isn't remotely credible to accept that the various reports, interviews and memoirs that originated from Swanson, Anderson, Macnaghten, Abberline and Dew acceidentally support that the conclusion that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited, and that the press just happened to lend weight to the conclusion.

If the press were so hell-bent on "sensationalism", don't you think they'd jump at the opportunity to extoll the veracity of the originator of the most "sensational" witness account to have emerged from the investigation? Of course they would, and remember that both newspapers had previously offered an enthusiastic commentary on the Hutchinson account. Why else would they change their tune, less still LIE, about Hutchinson's apparent falling out of favour with the "authorities" unless it actually occured?

Anderson stated that the only witness to have acquired a good look at the murderer was Jewish, and since none of the Jewish witnesses alleged anywhere near as good a sighting as Hutchinson claimed, it's clear that Anderson did not consider Hutchinson a credible witness. This neatly ties in with Abberline's observation concerning the witnesses who described foreign-looking suspects but only got a rear view, not "...apart from that amazing star witness who got a close-up fron-on view of a foreign suspect". Macnaghten too made no reference to Hutchinson. Why would Lawende be used in identify parades when the police knew they had another potential witness who recorded such a close description?

It's just too much of a coincidence that the press reports that referred to the discredited nature of Hutchinson's evidence just happened to mesh up closely with police evidence to the same effect.

Best regards,
Ben

[Hunter]

Hello Sox,

Whether Hutchinson was reliable or not, to me, doesn't matter. Its the pattern of all of these women that is known that matters. A pattern that was obviously known to the killer as well. If no one saw Mary take someone to her room, the fact that she was found there, murdered... and the others were found where they did business as well is enough to logically suspect that she picked him up on the street, took him to her room, and what happened, happened.

[Chava]

The only problem being, Chava, that the man observed by Sarah Lewis was standing by the lodging house opposite the interconnecting passage. In other words, on the other side of the street.

Again, though, Sarah Lewis was unambiguous in her observation that the man with the woman and 'Wideawake' were different men.

Best wishes

Garry Wroe.

Good points Garry. But if Lewis was focussed on getting into Millers Court, she probably wouldn't have done more than take a cursory glance at the fellow standing outside Crossingham's Rents. So she only noticed the stature and the hat. She makes it clear that the man with the woman is further along Dorset Street, and not in the court. Now it could be that the couple she describes are Kelly and the last punter of her life. She doesn't say which way they were headed--whether towards or away from the court. Kelly, we know, was drunk that night. It's very possible she stopped singing and went out again. It's also possible that the couple in question had nothing to do with anything, and that the man standing and looking up the court may have been trying to work out if the coast was clear enough to go up and kill Kelly. And we'll never know if that man was Blotchy-Face or not.

That having been said, I'm interested as to whether the couple Lewis saw could be the couple Kudzu saw--if in fact he saw anyone! I'll have to go back and check to see if I can find Lewis's original statement to the police about those two. She could corroborate Hutchinson...

But I doubt she did. They would have had to have questioned her closely on the couple she saw. If there was any chance that they were the couple Hutchinson describes, ie Kelly and Mr Astrakhan, they wouldn't have dismissed Hutchinson's description that fast.

[Sox]

Sorry Ben, none of that is proof of anything, and I have seen all of that before. They are newspaper accounts, from a sensationalist press who were in a frenzy in 1888.

We have no documents, from the police, saying that Hutchinson was ever discredited as a witness my friend, none. I admit I am not a fan of the press, not in 2010 or in 1888. We do have reason to think, from the hands of policemen in official files, that Packer was mistaken/lying for example, but not a scrap about George Hutchinson, and before we stray too far off topic my point is this:

George Hutchinson was, by his own admission, the last person to see Mary Kelly alive (even ignoring his account of the man with her)....and when he saw her she was soliciting AND taking a man back to her room. Mary Cox also see's Kelly taking a man to her room. So within the space of a little over two hours, we have have two witnesses telling us that Mary Kelly takes men back to No13.

A compelling reason for believing that Mary Kelly was both soliciting, and using her room to service clients, on the night she died.

[Ben]

In all fairness to Abberline, however, it would be difficult, at the time, to discount two possible sightings of the murderer with his victims shortly before they may have been killed- maybe just wishful thinking on his part that he had a real tangible clue.

Absolutely, Hunter. I share your interpretation. Abberline was a beleagured detective with a paucity of tangible clues. He would have been churlish in the extreme to have dismissed Hutchinson outright without at least circulating the description, and it isn't difficult to envisage him being buoyed with hope when news arrived that a new witness had a detailed description of a potential suspect whom he CAN identify. As subsequent indications reveal, however, this enthusiasm was very short-lived.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hiya Ben, can you provide your source for this please? I only ask because I have never seen any proof that discredits Hutchinsons statement.

Hi Sox,

As early as the 13th November, the Daily Echo reported that a reduced importance had been attached to Hutchinsion's accounnt, observing that: "Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

This was reiterated in an account from The Star which also stated that Hutchinson's account had been discredited.

"As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room."

The heading of the article ran as follows:

Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents

These reports would also correspond with police reports, interviews and memoirs that lend weight to Hutchinson's "discrediting", from Anderson's claim that the only person to have acquired a good look at the the killer was Jewish, to Abberline's observation that the witnesses who described foreign suspects only acquired rear sightings, to Macnaughten's claim that nobody saw the killer, unless it originated from Mitre Square. To say Hutchinson is conspicuous in his absence would be an understatement.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

The problem I have with Sugden is that he relies rather too heavily, in my opinion, on the assumption that Hutchinson was not only truthful in his account but that he saw "Jack the Ripper", a belief that he later uses to support a rather tenuous case against poisoner Severin Klosowski. The certainty which he professes with regard to the manner in which Kelly met her attacker might therefore be considered unwarranted, especially in light of compelling evidence that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited shortly after it came to the fore. In almost all other respects, however, I would heartily endorse Sugden's work as an excellent guide to the Whitechapel murders
Ben

Hi Ben,

Those are good points. I would add that Sugden championed Abberline quite alot even though Abberline believed Schwartz as well as Hutchinson. In all fairness to Abberline, however, it would be difficult, at the time, to discount two possible sightings of the murderer with his victims shortly before they may have been killed- maybe just wishful thinking on his part that he had a real tangible clue.

I don't get the impression that Sugden was basing his conclusion so much on Hutchinson as it was an analysis of an overall pattern of the murders- that the victims were prostitutes; they solicited their customers; took them to the spot to carry out the transaction, and were thus, murdered. To me, this is very logical.

[Sox]

especially in light of compelling evidence that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited shortly after it came to the fore.

Hiya Ben, can you provide your source for this please? I only ask because I have never seen any proof that discredits Hutchinsons statement.

[DVV]

I must apologise for the recent adversarial interlude Ben

Ben, my friend,

for once you were innocent.
As much as a newborn Astrakhan lamb.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

I just want to say that I've enjoyed sharing this thread with you and though I may disagree, I think you've made your points with skill and tact.

Many thanks for the kind words, Hunter, and I extend the same. I must apologise for the recent adversarial interlude with the poster who decided to attack me unprovoked, although I'm pleased to see we're back on track now.

The problem I have with Sugden is that he relies rather too heavily, in my opinion, on the assumption that Hutchinson was not only truthful in his account but that he saw "Jack the Ripper", a belief that he later uses to support a rather tenuous case against poisoner Severin Klosowski. The certainty which he professes with regard to the manner in which Kelly met her attacker might therefore be considered unwarranted, especially in light of compelling evidence that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited shortly after it came to the fore. In almost all other respects, however, I would heartily endorse Sugden's work as an excellent guide to the Whitechapel murders.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

So do you still think I'm loving Blotchy-Face too much, David? It's likely Lewis saw him from the back as he was already in the entrance to the court when she got there. So she may not have noticed his face at all--in fact probably didn't, as she makes no attempt to describe it.

The only problem being, Chava, that the man observed by Sarah Lewis was standing by the lodging house opposite the interconnecting passage. In other words, on the other side of the street.

it's eminently possible that Blotchy-Face and Wideawake-Hat-Man are the same guy.

Again, though, Sarah Lewis was unambiguous in her observation that the man with the woman and 'Wideawake' were different men.

Best wishes

Garry Wroe.

[DVV]

Hello Chava,

without Hutch, you could be right. But I simply think "Wideawake" was Hutch. And I don't think Hutch was Blotchy.

Amitiés,
David

[Chava]

Chava, you really like Blotchy too much.

Amitiés,
David

Well, it's true. I like him a lot

That having been said, it's eminently possible that Blotchy-Face and Wideawake-Hat-Man are the same guy.

This is what Lewis says at the inquest:

Sarah Lewis deposed: I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock. When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court.

This is what Cox says at the inquest:

A short, stout man, shabbily dressed. He had on a longish coat, very shabby, and carried a pot of ale in his hand.
[Coroner] What was the colour of the coat ? - A dark coat.
[Coroner] What hat had he ? - A round hard billycock.

You yourself pointed out on these boards quite a long time ago that at the time of the murders, billycock hats and wideawake hats were in fact the same style of hat, although later on in the century they did differ.

So do you still think I'm loving Blotchy-Face too much, David? It's likely Lewis saw him from the back as he was already in the entrance to the court when she got there. So she may not have noticed his face at all--in fact probably didn't, as she makes no attempt to describe it.

[Hunter]

Civilized debate

Hello Ben,

I just want to say that I've enjoyed sharing this thread with you and though I may disagree, I think you've made your points with skill and tact. I don't know why some honest disagreements turn into personal assaults, but having participated in the Stride thread for some time it seems that they eventually evolve that way as each side digs in it heels. I don't know about you, but I participate in this forum as a temporary escape from the trials of life as well as the interest in the subject, which is what a hobby is for. Those that set themselves up as arbitrators of what is correct, then come to the conclusion that someone who disagrees is ignorant tend to show their own ignorance in the process.

Anyway, back to the subject of this thread. I will quote Sugden, who's opinion I will admit I am partial to.

'It is probable that the victims accosted or were accousted by the murderer in thoroughfares like Whitechapel Road and Commercial Street, and that they then conducted him themselves to the secluded spots where they were slain. Thiis was certainly the case with Mary Kelly, who died in her own room in Miller's Court. And it was probably true with the others. Martha Tabram is known to have serviced another client in George Yard just three hours before she was killed there. Annie Chapman met her death in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street and there is reason to believe that she led her killer there. The house is known to be a resort of prostitutes, it was within a few hundred yards of Annie's lodging house at 35 Dorset Street... Bucks Row, Dutfields Yard and the dark corner of Mitre Square were also frequently used by prostitutes.'

Best Wishes,
Hunter