The question about a pardon

[Fisherman]

Hi c.d!

Well, that´s not entirely easy to say. To begin with, one may of course reason that if the police had no identity to the loiterer, then by reason maybe they would write him up as the Ripper and not an accomplice. So what I´m suggesting here, is that there were parametres that may have swayed them to another conviction.
Two such parametres may perhaps be found in what Lewis and Bond said. Lewis stated that the man she saw seemed to be waiting for somebody, and she puts the time - rather confidently - to 2.30 in the morning.
Bond, who examined Kelly at 2 PM on the day of her murder, reached the conclusion that she had been killed in the vicinity of 1 to 2 o´clock in the morning. Therefore, if the police listened to what Bond had to say, they would have the Ripper going about his business at approximately the right time for the loiterer to be a possible lookout.

And Phillips? We know that he set the time a good deal later, and if he was correct, then the lookout would have been in place a couple of hours too early. Then again, he may have recognized that Bond - who was top dog - could have been correct, and realized that if this was so, they may well have had an accomplice on their hands.

The best,
Fisherman

[Zodiac]

Hi Zodiac,
Thanks for your info on The Yorkshire Ripper,I will confess not to know very much about that case, I just added the comment as a side note.

Hi spyglass,

No problems spy, I hope that it didn't come across as if I was having a go at you about it, because that really wasn't my intention at all, apologies if seemed that way. I guess I can get a bit too uptight over every last detail of the Yorkshire Ripper case sometimes, as indeed some people who post on these forums can occassionally do about the Whitechapel murders!

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[GregBaron]

Accomplice??????????

Interesting discussion guys,

It would seem the loiterer is Hutchinson and who's to say he wasn't
the accomplice? I guess he duped them....? And we know Tom Westcott's
Le Grand studies say an accomplice cannot be ruled out.....I always thought
the escape from Miller's court would be the hardest part...on a side note....
Mr. Woods says 'serial killer' in his sardonic parliamentary dialogue, we know
of course no such term existed at this time.......and perhaps that's the clue...Dr.
Phillips on witnessing the savagery of the attack concluded that no
single man could have committed such an atrocity....based simply on its
unbelievable violence..........now 122 years on we know what sort of
depravities serial murderers are capable of....just a thought....I tend
to agree with c.d..........desperation.....remember this is #5 or #7 without
a solution..............


Greg

[Fisherman]

GregBaron suggests:

"It would seem the loiterer is Hutchinson and who's to say he wasn't
the accomplice?"

Actually, Greg, my whole reasoning works from the assumption that Hutch was NOT the loiterer - his proposal of being so would have been dismissed on factual grounds and beyond doubt in the scenario I speak of here, leaving the police with an unidentified man, and thus hoping to have him give himself up and be pardoned. Remember that the pardon was still being offered after Hutch gave his evidence, suggesting that the police had not yet found the accomplice.

"Dr. Phillips on witnessing the savagery of the attack concluded that no
single man could have committed such an atrocity....based simply on its
unbelievable violence..."

I don´t think this suggestion has a lot going for it. Phillips would have seen quite a lot in his line of duty, and there was no knowing how much time the killer had had on his hands. And if somebody can manage to, for instance, cut away the left breast, it would have been perfectly clear to Phillips that he could have done so with the right one too. And I am having difficulties finding any other limiting factors that may have made Phillips believe in two cutters. Besides, as has been stated before, the pardon was directed at somebody who had not taken an active part in the deed itself, but instead offered assistance to the killer AFTER it.

The best,
Fisherman

[GregBaron]

Good points...

Points well taken Fisherman, I wasn't so much thinking of 2 people in the room but simply of 2 people in cahoots and thus as you said giving ample time....I probably didn't phrase it very well.....

I understand your point about Hutch but although they may have dismissed his testimony I never thought they believed he wasn't loitering around Miller's Court.....

I suppose your hypothesis rests on this supposition......hmmm.....makes one wonder why he came forward.....?

Greg

[Fisherman]

GregBaron writes:

"I understand your point about Hutch but although they may have dismissed his testimony I never thought they believed he wasn't loitering around Miller's Court.....
I suppose your hypothesis rests on this supposition......hmmm.....makes one wonder why he came forward.....?"

I think, Greg, that the dismissal of Hutch´s testimony would not have rested on the inherent qualities of it - Abberline was of the meaning that it was true, and Abberline was about the street-wisest of the detectives around. When he made a call, he would not be naive about it.
Therefore, I believe the wisest suggestion is that the detail or details that sent Hutch on his way, was NOT the fact that the description he made was not something the police would buy - for by that time it was already bought and paid for.

So what was it, then? My hunch is that it was something that made it perfectly obvious to the police and the press that they had been fooled big time. Take the press, for example - they had on their hands what they believed to be the star witness in the Whitechapel murder case, an extreme high-profile case that would have attracted heaps and heaps of readers, a golden calf, if you will. Any information expanding on any aspect of the murders would make sure that more copies were sold - but what happens? Hutch is dismissed in the fewest of words, and nothing is said about why. To me, that reeks of a good deal of shame on behalf of the press; it is like they were caught with their pants down, and the man that would have lowered them pants would have been Hutch. As I wrote before, I am a journalist myself, and I recognize the reflex.

The only thing I can make out of this is that Hutch was thrown out in extenso - not just his testimony. I think that there may well have been proof around, effectively showing that Hutch was never in Dorset Street that night.

And just like you say, this begs the question why? Well, it has been suggested many times that he may have been just an attention-seeker, and that is of course a possibility.
It has also been stated that he may have come forward in hope to make a few bob from the police. And there is good reason to believe that this is what happened - we at least know that he was helping the police in the search for Astrakhan man.

...but there is of course also a third, quite intriguing possibility - that he had been payed or swayed BEFORE he went to the police. Not to help them, but to put them off the scent. Of course, if we have not already entered the Country of Surmise, this suggestion takes us there very quickly. But there are a few things to bolster it:

Hutch did not come forward until three days after the inquest. Therefore, we cannot say that he must have been the loiterer, since the inquest afforded the information about that loiterer to anybody who could read.

But let´s create another scenario than the usual one! Let´s, for arguments sake, say that the loiterer was Blotchy, and let´s say that he worked as Jacks associate. We know that he spent time with Kelly in her room after midnight, but we do not know that he was a punter. What we have on record is instead beer and singing, nothing else. So, moving on with this sinister story, let´s say that his task was to drink Kelly senseless, something he seemed well on his way to do when Cox met them.
After having accomplished his mission, he leaves the scene, leaving the door open for his pal Jack. And Blotchy himself takes on the role as a lookout while Jack starts cutting. He secures that nobody is around to see Jack as he leaves, and the two leave the stage, thinking they had gotten away with it.

But lo and behold, at the inquest, a woman - Lewis - states that she has seen this short, stout guy in a wideawake, a description answering to that of Blotchy, watching the court. And suddenly Blotchy realizes that he could possibly be pinned on two different points and times, and that would make any police force add two and two together.

So what does he need? He needs somebody to step in and take on the loiterers part, effectively wiping out that bit of his role and turning him into nothing but a probable punter, in place before Kelly died. Which is why he spends a couple of days working on his story and contacting his pal George, who gladly accepts to go to the police, with money in his pocket and hoping for more. End of story.

Fictitious, of course, but one of a few possible explanations to what Hutch was doing at the police station if he was not the loiterer. And there is good reason to believe that he wasn´t!

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

The poilice hauled in suspects that resembled the astrakan man description all the way into January. Hutch wasn't so quickly dismissed. What happened, as with all suspects based on physical descriptions of the case, is that as time went on, the trail got cold as each suspect was cleared. After a couple of months, it became irrelevant... Simple as that.

[Fisherman]

Hunter writes:

"Hutch wasn't so quickly dismissed."

The Star, Nov 15:th 1888:
"Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson, who said that on Friday morning last he saw Kelly with a dark-complexioned, middle-aged, foreign-looking, bushy-eyebrowed gentleman, with the dark moustache turned up at the ends, who wore the soft felt hat, the long dark coat, trimmed with astrachan, the black necktie, with horseshoe pin, and the button boots, and displayed a massive gold watch-chain, with large seal and a red stone attached.
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."

...and that´s pretty quick the way I see things. But the most telling thing would be that once the officers and detectives involved found the time to write their memoirs, none of them spoke of hot-shot George as something of value. It makes it very obvious that the testimony that held so much promise when it was given had proven worthless in the end. And the beginning of that end has got November 15 stamped on it. At that time, the press firmly stated that there was no value whatsoever in Hutch´s testimony. And that would not owe to any speculation on behalf of the journalists that the description of Astrakhan man was too detailed, nor would it depend on the differences between police protocol and press interwiews - for after all, Hutch did manage to get most of the parts right.
Something else, something quite decisive, came up and blew the story - it is pretty clear to my mind. And that would have left the police with an unidentified loiterer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

Whatever the Star said, it is a fact that the police were picking up men that answered Hutch's description weeks after the murders.


Daily News
United Kingdom
8 December 1888


THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS

At Worship street Police court yesterday, Joseph Isaacs, 30, who said he had no fixed abode, and described himself as a cigar maker, was charged with having stolen a watch, value 30s., the goods of Julius Levenson. 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 inst. 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 pawnshop. 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 walking 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. Detective Record said that there were some matters alleged against the prisoner which it was desired to inquire into. Mr. Bushby remanded the prisoner.


A police report from G Division dated January 19, 1889, describes a suspect named Joseph Denny wearing a '...long dark overcoat with black astracan collar and cuffs...' He had been seen 'accosting' several women on Dec. 28 and was taken in for questioning by two constables.

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

If Joseph Denny was seen "accosting several women" then of course he was going to be the target of an investigation by the police, irrespective of his appearance. That doesn't mean he was investigated because of any similarity with a witness description. The same goes for Joseph Isaacs. The alleged threats of violence against women, the theft of a watch, and the fact that he lodged a stone's throw from Miller's Court provided more than sufficient imputuses for police interest.

Best regards,
Ben

[claire]

Something else, something quite decisive, came up and blew the story - it is pretty clear to my mind. And that would have left the police with an unidentified loiterer.

That's my take, too...the question is, what? Wild speculations welcome; I'm in that sort of a mood

[Hunter]

Hi Ben,

Your point is well taken, but I think the astrachan was the icing on the cake. The fact that it was even mentioned gives it some importance. In Denny's case, two citizens had followed him around. There was also the incident with Edward Knight Larkins who turned a man in fitting the same description.

The police could not afford to dismiss any suspect description that had a possibility of being viable. They had so little to work with. Indeed, well into January '89 they were still checking out men with black bags, peaked caps, sailor caps...even a 'toff' on Westminster Bridge that a lady had reported. Hutchinson's man was the only one that would have fit that man as well.

Strange behaviour coupled with a physical description from any of the witnesses would get one taken in for questioning.

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

It is true that members of the public continued to alert the police to the presence of men fitting certain witness descriptions, but these ordinary citizens were highly unlikely to have known which witnesses were still deemed credible by the police. The latter, of course, were obliged to follow up all leads brought to their attention, irrespective of which witnesses had been discarded. Take the case of Douglas Cow, for example, whose offence was to dress respectably and smile at Fanny Drake as he walked past her on Westminster Bridge. On the basis of an account she had read in the papers, she became convinced that she had found the ripper and reported the incident to the police on 21st November. Cow was quickly located and dismissed, and embarrassed apologies followed.

Drake had simply recalled a description that had recently appeared in the newspapers. She wouldn’t have known, necessarily, that certain eyewitness accounts had already been discarded as having little value by the time she contacted the police. Ditto the citizens who followed Denny. There was never any proof, for example, that Matthew Packer lied in his statement, but it appeared to have been a police consensus that he had. That doesn't mean that the public at large were aware that seeking out suspects based on the Packer description was a futile pursuit.

The crucial observation regarding Denny and Isaacs, however, is that they would have warranted police investigation irrespective of what clothes they happened to be wearing.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

That is a good point about Packer. There is official police statements that dismiss his claims. There is no such record that the police dismissed Hutchinson and despite the fact that citizens made the reports mentioned, the police wrote them down with full descriptions of the suspects and the information was passed up the chain of command.

[Fisherman]

Hi Hunter!

I´m afraid I fully agree with what Ben is saying here - the Astrakhan trimming was not what brought on the police interest in the cases you mention.

I think that you must ask yourself why the Star (and other papers, I believe) published the bit about Hutch´s story being of no value at all. Would they have come to that conclusion themselves? I think not - they were handing down information from the police in all probability.
I also think that we must consider the fact that Hutch´s story would not have gone from shining gold, approved by Abberline, to a total dismissal in just the odd day or two. If there had been a discussion along those lines, it would reasonably have been a lengthy one, and the first sign of it would not have been a total rejection of the testimony. And if there had been doubts, and nothing but doubts, then it would have been something that showed in how the material was treated by the press. But no - POOOF! - and it was exit left for George Hutchinson.

Claire, I would have loved to be able to pin it for you, but alas, that I cannot do. But I would advice to remember that the reasons for the dismissal need not be sinister - it could have been a mistaken date or identity that lay behind it for all we know.
One thing I would like to add, though, if we are to opt for the sinister version, is that the obstacle of "why would he have risked to go to the police and perhaps find a noose around his neck?" may be overcome. If we muse on about a conspiracy in which Hutch was swayed or payed to take on the role as the loiterer, then maybe Hutch was chosen because he actually may have had a perfect alibi for the Kelly murder, a card that he could play should he feel the heat turning on. That could have been the deal in such a case: He was to try and take on the loiterers role, covering for somebody else, and he could do so without taking a risk, since he had that alibi up his sleeve, should things turn ugly.
And maybe that was what happened - he got cold feet, and told the police that he had just wanted to take a chance on some reward money for helping them, but in fact, he had been tending to a sick horse at a farm in the countryside at the given time.

Off the hook he comes, on his way he is sent, the press sighs and regrets that they were taken for a ride that easily, and the police tell him never to do something like that again.

...or something like that!

The best,
Fisherman