Romford

[Abby Normal]

Think of a few hypothetical reasons then, Abby. And explain why Dew was at a loss and reduced to speculating about it.[/QUOTE]

Hello Ruby!
Well since you asked i guess I can play my own devils advocate.

Non-nefarious reasons:

He moved away
He had a sudden change of heart and did not want to be involved anymore
He remained a useful witness and was used by the police later but no records were kept and/or they were lost
He actually was mistaken on the day (all credit to Walter Dew and Fish)

My own personal opinion as you know is that the police eventually became to beleive that he was not a reliable witness and dropped him like a black bananna.

[Monty]

Think of a few hypothetical reasons then, Abby. And explain why Dew was at a loss and reduced to speculating about it.

Hello Ruby!
Well since you asked i guess I can play my own devils advocate.

Non-nefarious reasons:

He moved away
He had a sudden change of heart and did not want to be involved anymore
He remained a useful witness and was used by the police later but no records were kept and/or they were lost
He actually was mistaken on the day (all credit to Walter Dew and Fish)

My own personal opinion as you know is that the police eventually became to beleive that he was not a reliable witness and dropped him like a black bananna.[/QUOTE]

So why not label him as unreliable, as they did with Packer?

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

Interesting, Ruby, Bob´s book is the one I haven´t managed to get yet - tried when in England this summer but will have to go back to Amazon and try again.

Best wishes,
C4

Hello curious

There are several copies of Bob Hinton's book From Hell available on ABE Books at this time. Good luck.

Chris

[Rubyretro]

Think of a few hypothetical reasons then, Abby. And explain why Dew was at a loss and reduced to speculating about it.

Hello Ruby!
Well since you asked i guess I can play my own devils advocate.

Non-nefarious reasons:

He moved away
He had a sudden change of heart and did not want to be involved anymore
He remained a useful witness and was used by the police later but no records were kept and/or they were lost

He actually was mistaken on the day (all credit to Walter Dew and Fish)

My own personal opinion as you know is that the police eventually became to beleive that he was not a reliable witness and dropped him like a black bananna.

[/QUOTE]

Interesting reply, Abby....

-

He moved away

He probably did -maybe not straight away. However, Kelly was killed in November, and I would have imagined that casual, itinerant (?) unspecified work didn't begin over the Winter/Christmas period but might start in the Spring ?

I have nothing to base that on other than a knowledge of how things work today (I'm married to a builder, and we used to farm sheep).

If he was determined to appear innocent, I reckon that he would have stayed in London for a few months, at the disposition of the Police, and because there was more work in the city than outside?

-

He had a sudden change of heart and did not want to be involved anymore

Not his choice once he became known to the Police as a key witness.

-

He remained a useful witness and was used by the police later but no records were kept and/or they were lost

The scenario of the 'missing records' is sadly the one used by anyone who has no argument. Those 'missing records' can say whatever we want.
The fact is that Hutchinson did disappear off the radar.

-

He actually was mistaken on the day (all credit to Walter Dew and Fish)

Apart from the the fact that you could hardly have not noticed Mary Kelly's murder, living about 5 minutes from the place, and Police and public pouring into the area, and the events happening the night before, to a friend of yours, when you were standing outside...yeah, yeah...
More like Dew, believing the 'normal' looking man that he'd seen, and groping in the dark for an -any- explanation for the hiatus.

-

My own personal opinion as you know is that the police eventually became to beleive that he was not a reliable witness and dropped him like a black bananna.[/QUOTE

I can't think of any objections .
Yes, that seems to be the most logical reason.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Ruby!
Well since you asked i guess I can play my own devils advocate.

Non-nefarious reasons:

He moved away
He had a sudden change of heart and did not want to be involved anymore
He remained a useful witness and was used by the police later but no records were kept and/or they were lost
He actually was mistaken on the day (all credit to Walter Dew and Fish)

My own personal opinion as you know is that the police eventually became to beleive that he was not a reliable witness and dropped him like a black bananna.

So why not label him as unreliable, as they did with Packer?

Monty
[/QUOTE]

Hi Monty

So why not label him as unreliable

Well I kind of do-at the very least:

Most likely: he lied
Possible: he lied and was JtR
Possible: he was totally honest

as they did with Packer?
The differences between the circumstances between Hutch and Packer are very different, but yes IMHO they were both probably liars, but with even the slimmest of possibilities that packer was a liar and JtR. : )

[Monty]

Hi Abby,

No, I'm not after your opinion, which I have to point out is built on assumption.

I'm after a reason why Swanson stated Packer was unreiable whereas Abberline, or Swanso, or any Police official did not do the same with Hutchinsonm

The differences are unimportant. Both were witnesses, one was labelled as unreliable, other was not as far as we are aware.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

No, I'm not after your opinion, which I have to point out is built on assumption.

I'm after a reason why Swanson stated Packer was unreiable whereas Abberline, or Swanso, or any Police official did not do the same with Hutchinsonm

The differences are unimportant. Both were witnesses, one was labelled as unreliable, other was not as far as we are aware.

Monty

Hi Monty
Gotcha. Sorry i thought you asked me a question
So why not label him as unreliable, as they did with Packer?

But since you apparently did not ask me a question, I guess i have no response.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
"Theres so much we don't know".How true,and one thing we don't know,is whether Hutchinson was in Romford at the time he claimed.

Yes Harry, but why should we be so concerned about whether he was or wasn't?
What has that question to do with Mary Kelly's murder?

As Romford is mentioned on his statement to police, certainly they were aware of his claim, and as there were apparently no subsequent questions about it, why should we create a mystery where none exists?

Please keep in mind, it is "us" who do not know, not the police. Therefore, just because we do not know, that does not make the question important.

Do you think we should question Eddowes claim to have been hop-picking in Kent, thats way too far to walk, surely she must be lying?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Changing his appearence after the murder would be like 'shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted'.

A Man's description was widely circulated in the Press.

Lot's of men may have owned a horseshoe tie pin, far fewer men would have owned a watch with a red fob, and the number of men wearing the two together with an astrakhan coat would be extremely rare to say the least -and taken with the rest of the physical description narrows it down to one man. What's more Hutchinson thought that he lived in the area.

It beggars belief that A Man would only have worn have worn his jewellery once in his life, the night he supposedly met Mary Kelly. It is also impossible to think that no one that saw A Man going about his daily business (family,
maids, tradesmen, shopkeepers, work contacts, publicans, carriage drivers etc) had ever noticed his jewellery. If he had existed why did no one
recognise the description ?

I think that part of the answer to your question is that your assumed micro-analysis is embedded with flaws.
You have convinced yourself that this man's appearance was so "extraordinary" that no-one could possibly not know him. Yet you have no idea how common the Astrachan coat was among Russian Jews, that numerous Russian Jews populated Whitechapel.

How common was it to see "slummers" parading around Whitechapel in their finery, horseshoe tie-pins, spats & watchchains?, which were as common as the modern wristwatch among those who wore them.
Watchchains with fob seem to be very common, or at least there are numerous heirloom examples still existing today, in a wide range of styles.
By what rationale do you claim rareties?

Your argument is based on guesswork, an accumulation of "rare items", yet how do you establish that these items were rare?
Should you actually find these items were very common among the classes, your argument falls apart.
What do you suggest we do Ruby, try to prove they were rare, or try to prove they were common?
Go ahead, Ladies first?

Not only did the population want to catch the Ripper to stop the killings, but the City Police and Lord Mayor had offered a reward after the murder of Eddowes, so there was a strong motivation for people recognising the description to 'shop' A Man. No one did.
Why do you think that was ?

What we do know is dozens, if not hundreds of people were 'shopped' every day.
Where are the descriptions of all these "shopped" people, what did they look like?

By what inside info do you claim to know that "no-one shopped an Astro-man" lookalike?

Are you making a claim which cannot be substantiated?

This is one of the problems with creating an endless list of "exceptions" to convince yourself you are right, if anyone asks you to substantiate your list you will immediately back away, because guesswork cannot be proven. Your arguement is based on how you feel, and you refuse to be wrong.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

It's well worth reading. It's got some good nuggets of research in it (such as
the bit that I quoted on the amount of work available in Romford for a casual
labourer in 1888), and some very good ideas

I have always regarded Bob as thorough when it comes to research.

(it was Bob who first came up with the idea that Hutchinson could have got the description of A Man's clothes from a shop window dummy, hence his confusion over the wearing of spats).

Would you, or anyone, mind explaining why that is a good idea?
I'm not being flippant, or trying to be funny, I seriously desire to know why this is a good idea?
Have I missed something, has it ever happened?

The conclusion is rather romanced, and you can use a pinch of salt

Historical synthesis is quite a different kettle of fish from Research. Good researchers are loath to draw firm conclusions. The very nature of their objectivity as an unbiased researcher requires they keep an open mind.

Researchers do not always make good synthesists. With the one discipline you require to keep an open mind, while the other requires the assembly of a string of conclusions. Both schools of thought are not easily compatible.

Regards, Jon S.

[Raoul's Obsession]

I can see a situation in which the police ascertained that Hutchison was out by a day and as a result 'discredited' him. However, if they believed that he had been trying to be honest, it makes no sense to openly and publicly call him a liar - he was (under this theory) afterall trying to do his best and believed he was telling the truth. That makes him a very different candidate than Packer, where it appears that police decided he was a sensation seeking liar.

Now, I'm not saying that Hutchison actually witnessed what he said he witnessed - but if the police at least believed he was trying to be honest, it may well be a reason to just let the whole thing blow over, rather than publicly discredit a la Packer.

Raoul

[Rubyretro]

You have convinced yourself that this man's appearance was so "extraordinary" that no-one could possibly not know him. Yet you have no idea how common the Astrachan coat was among Russian Jews, that numerous Russian Jews populated Whitechap

el.

I specifically mentioned the jewellery alliance -I certainly know how common astrakhan coats were, thankyou !

How common was it to see "slummers" parading around Whitechapel in their finery, horseshoe tie-pins, spats & watchchains?, which were as common as the modern wristwatch among those who wore them.
Watchchains with fob seem to be very common, or at least there are numerous heirloom examples still existing today, in a wide range of styles.
By what rationale do you claim rareties?

Horseshoe tie pins may have been common and watchchains with fobs may have been common......but fobs with a red stone fob were not common
(did you see Errata's (?) piece on them ?). They existed all right, but I have yet to find one photo of the time where a man is wearing one -if you can find one then please post it.

Even if you find a photo of a man in a watchchain with a red stone fob, then what are the chances that he will be wearing a horseshoe tie pin at the same time ? And geographically located in London, let alone the East End.

Spats were morning wear -to be worn "between breakfast and luncheon "
according to Bob Hinton -so I can't think that there were many men kicking about the area at night making that particular sartorial error, and wearing that particular combination combination of jewellery.

Even if you found a man that had all those things, he might be blond, short and fat, bald, have a little tipped up nose....anything.

I say that A Man's description was so precise that it narrowed things down to virtually one man -and even if by the biggest miracle the Police had found two men then they could have surely have eliminated one.

That is not guesswork; that is logic.

By what inside info do you claim to know that "no-one shopped an Astro-man" lookalike?

They probably did shop some 'lookalikes' -who did not tally with the precise description, and were not A Man. Given the fact that A Man was supposedly in Kelly's room for at least 3/4 of an hour just before the murder, had the
Police found him, he would have been mentioned in memoirs and we would
know something about him -even if he had been eliminated as a suspect.
But nothing.

[Rubyretro]

Historical synthesis is quite a different kettle of fish from Research. Good researchers are loath to draw firm conclusions. The very nature of their objectivity as an unbiased researcher requires they keep an open mind.

Researchers do not always make good synthesists. With the one discipline you require to keep an open mind, while the other requires the assembly of a string of conclusions. Both schools of thought are not easily compatible.

Funnily enough, I agree with you Jon. And I think that "both schools of thought" were not easily compatible in Bob's book.

I was very interested in the research and the ideas, and I personally agreed before reading the book with his opinion that Hutchinson was the killer -but that of course was only his opinion (which he was entitled to hold).

Still, I think that the book should hold a warning on the cover !

My mother and sister both read the book and were utterly convinced by the conclusion, bolstered by Bob's research and his experience as a magistrate.
It may be a surprise to you to know that I found myself playing 'Devil's Advocate' and trying to point out the opposite points of view held by people like yourself on Casebook !

The book is very interesting for people with a wide knowledge of the case, and/or as entertainment (it's a good read, full of personality and personal experience, and the basic facts of the case) -but it is dangerous to mix the research in with the subjective opinions for people finding out about the case for the first time. It made me feel uneasy at times -even thought I would
recommend it to anyone reading the arguments and counter arguments on Casebook.

[Phil H]

So why not label him [Hutchinson] as unreliable, as they did with Packer?

Surely the difference between the two men is that Packer became a "political" issue. The questions about grape stalks and his supposed eye-witness description of a man, plus the interference of Le Grand et al, began to make the police look incompetent.

Packer had to be interviewed by senior officials (for a long time it was believed Warren himself, as I recall) and thus he HAD to be shown up as unreliable in a public way.

The same factors did not apply to GH.

Phil

[harry]

Jon,
It's a question of whether he is believed or not.As I believe,as others do,thatHutchinson lied,it is just a question of how many lies.Proof,where given,dispels doubt.As to Eddowes,and how she got to the hop fields,give me details of her journey,and I will answer.