Hutch's Man

[John G]

Did Abberline change his mind about Hutchinson? Or was he suffering ftom selective memory loss, as he attempted to justify his own suspect, George Chapman.

What is extraordinary is how many facts he gets wrong, and how desperatly he was trying to make the "facts" fit the suspect.

For instance, he states that the murders were the work of an "expert surgeon"-highly dubious-and that Chapman studied medicine and surgery in Russia, which is wrong.

Then he states that the people who "allege" they saw JtR only saw his back (this is in order to address the age discrepancy.) But this statement is clearly absurd. It's a matter of public record that Hutchinson at least alleged he saw a suspect. And what about Lawende and Scwartz? Did Abberline believe they were both lying? Even if he did, it's equally absurd to assert that they didn't even allege that they'd seen a suspect.

[Michael W Richards]

It's worth remembering that it didn't take long for Abberline to change his mind about the veracity of Hutchinson's statement and there must have been a reason for that.

That is indeed worth remembering Curious. In less time than in took Georgie boy to come forward in the first place actually. I believe the statement given by George Hutchinson is to deflect suspicion from the loitering Wideawake character, by assuming his location and timing and giving a story that involves a protective element...albeit creepily stalker protective. On this note, do we ever hear of George producing the hat he wore that night? Couldn't that hat have been shown to Sarah? After all, how many hats would the man have?

We unfortunately don't know what was done to vet Georges story. We do know that he didn't face any witness from the night in the documents we have to review. Which means we have nothing but his word for all he says, just like Israel Schwartz, another witness who Abberline heartily supported. Its also worth remembering that Abberline, more than any other investigator in these cases, had an established connection with the people of this area. He worked it for years before his appointment, and he was given a commemorative cane by the local business people when he moved on up the ladder. I suspect he had more at stake personally in solving these crimes, and as a result, was more willing to accept answers in the form of witness statements.

He also famously said later in his career that "no-one" knew the identity of the killer, but he believed Chapmans story "dovetailed" neatly with the facts. He was still willing to accept some answer to these riddles after all those years, Im sure the failure to solve these cases dogged him more than most.

[John G]

hi john
Absolutely-although I think IF (BIG IF) aman was real I would go more with he was the bethnal green botherer who still could be druitt I suppose.
or possibly Koz. not chapman (eventhough the description is very similar) because of accent.

Druitt, though viable, just dosnt seem right to me as the ripper. first of all because of location/geoprofile, but also he dosnt really fit the short stout description, and personally druitt sounds like a very sensitive intelligent diligent type. and serial killers rarely if ever commit suicide and only seem to do so when capture is inevitable.

Thanks Abby (sorry for the late reply- embarrassingly I couldn't find the thread!

I agree with your comments about Druitt. Also, surely if he visited Whitechapel he would have dressed down, but Astrachan seems to have done the opposite- in such a notorious district, he may as well have written "please mug me" on his forehead!

[Sam Flynn]

I am prepared to entertain the idea that Hutchinson was telling the truth, so bias doesn't enter into it. Whatever my opinion on Hutchinson, it doesn't alter the fact that an objective reading across all the sources - and I mean all of them - doesn't support the idea that Lewis saw the couple enter Miller's Court.

[Wickerman]

We can change the written record in our posts to suit any personal bias, this is Casebook after all. But describing the press account as a "mish-mash of facts" when it just happens to confirm what Hutchinson said he saw, and was being told to the inquest before Hutchinson even spoke to police, is an act of desperation.
For any who have traditionally sold the farm on Hutchinson being a liar, and Astrachan being an invention, there is nothing to be ashamed of in admitting they have been backing the wrong horse all these years.

[Sam Flynn]

What does this say?
"[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

That bit in the Daily News is obviously a mish-mash of facts, heavily edited, not a verbatim statement - the word "further on" is missing, for one thing - and in the process of hacking that statement together, the editor has botched the meaning. I'm unaware of any other source that says the couple entered Miller's Court, most of them placing the couple "further on" as Lewis walks down Dorset Street.

[Wickerman]

Sarah Lewis doesn't say the couple go into Miller's Court or that they even entered the passage to Miller's Court.

What does this say?
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
Daily News 13 Nov. 1888.

If Hutchinson was the loiterer he too would've seen the couple enter the court. He mentions no other couple other than Mary Kelly and Astrachan man. If the couple Lewis saw was Mary Kelly and her killer walking away from her, then Hutchinson cannot be the loiterer as he is ahead them.

You're not reading what Lewis said.
"When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House."
Inquest record, 12 Nov. 1888.

Lewis did not see the loiterer when she saw the couple walk up the court. She only noticed him standing there when she arrived at the court, which had to be a minute or two later. So, you can't argue he was there before this couple entered the court, it doesn't say that.

It's worth remembering that it didn't take long for Abberline to change his mind about the veracity of Hutchinson's statement and there must have been a reason for that.

Show me where Abberline said he changed his mind.

[Sam Flynn]

Sarah Lewis doesn't say the couple go into Miller's Court or that they even entered the passage to Miller's Court. She only says they are further along, suggesting they are of the other side of the loiterer who is in line with the passage. This places Lewis east and the couple she saw west either side of the passage entrance. If the couple were walking away from her - to the west - then they had already passed Miller's Court without entering.

Quite correct.

[Curious Cat]

Yes, correct on all counts.



Hutchinson is the only witness who gave such a detailed description, but there are others who may have seen the same man.
- We have already mentioned Bowyer seeing a man in the court about 3:00am (Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer.), which if Hutchinson's story & timing are correct, had to be Astrachan.
- There is also another report from Mrs McCarthy, one of her customers told her about seeing "a funny looking man up the court this morning". Astrachan was certainly overdressed for that part of town.
- Finally, there is the sighting by Lewis discussed above. Though Sarah Lewis was not close enough to describe the man who accompanied the hatless, tipsy woman who entered the court ahead of her while the loiterer stood opposite Millers Court.

So, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that no-one else saw the same man that Hutchinson saw, evidently others did see him.
Which is another reason for Abberline accepting Hutchinson's story, others had already told him (Lewis), or would confirm what he saw the next day (Bowyer & Mrs. McCarthy).

Sarah Lewis doesn't say the couple go into Miller's Court or that they even entered the passage to Miller's Court. She only says they are further along, suggesting they are of the other side of the loiterer who is in line with the passage. This places Lewis east and the couple she saw west either side of the passage entrance. If the couple were walking away from her - to the west - then they had already passed Miller's Court without entering. If they were walking towards her - to the east - then she cannot see if they pass the passage entrance or follow behind her into it.

If Hutchinson was the loiterer he too would've seen the couple enter the court. He mentions no other couple other than Mary Kelly and Astrachan man. If the couple Lewis saw was Mary Kelly and her killer walking away from her, then Hutchinson cannot be the loiterer as he is ahead them. If the couple Lewis saw was Mary Kelly and her killer walking towards her, then again the loiterer cannot be Hutchinson as he says Mary Kelly is already in her room when he took up his position.


Bowyer and Mrs McCarthy each say they saw a man, but there's no certainty that it was the same man either of them saw.

It's worth remembering that it didn't take long for Abberline to change his mind about the veracity of Hutchinson's statement and there must have been a reason for that.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As some of you may know , I am a supporter of Hutchinson's account. I believe he was George Topping Hutchinson, father of the late Reg Hutchinson, I believe his account is true.
But this does not mean that A man was Mary's killer, I still believe that she was killed much later then medical opinion. and most likely met her killer around 9.am.
This being the case alibi's may not be appropriate.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Sarah Lewis identifies the same man at two different locations at different times, clearly recognising him on the second occasion she sees him. We must then assume that she would recognise him again should she see him for a third time. As her description of the man she saw doesn't match Hutchinson's description of the man he saw, then clearly the Bethnal Green Botherer/Britannia man and Astrachan man are separate individuals.

Yes, correct on all counts.

Hutchinson is the only person apparently to see Astrachan man. However, Hutchinson may be the man Lewis saw loitering opposite the entrance to Miller's Court or he may be the Bethnal Green Botherer/Britannia man. Going to the police may have been him attempting to deflect from be the latter and place himself as being the former.

Hutchinson is the only witness who gave such a detailed description, but there are others who may have seen the same man.
- We have already mentioned Bowyer seeing a man in the court about 3:00am (Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer.), which if Hutchinson's story & timing are correct, had to be Astrachan.
- There is also another report from Mrs McCarthy, one of her customers told her about seeing "a funny looking man up the court this morning". Astrachan was certainly overdressed for that part of town.
- Finally, there is the sighting by Lewis discussed above. Though Sarah Lewis was not close enough to describe the man who accompanied the hatless, tipsy woman who entered the court ahead of her while the loiterer stood opposite Millers Court.

So, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that no-one else saw the same man that Hutchinson saw, evidently others did see him.
Which is another reason for Abberline accepting Hutchinson's story, others had already told him (Lewis), or would confirm what he saw the next day (Bowyer & Mrs. McCarthy).

[Curious Cat]

Sarah Lewis identifies the same man at two different locations at different times, clearly recognising him on the second occasion she sees him. We must then assume that she would recognise him again should she see him for a third time. As her description of the man she saw doesn't match Hutchinson's description of the man he saw, then clearly the Bethnal Green Botherer/Britannia man and Astrachan man are separate individuals.

Hutchinson is the only person apparently to see Astrachan man. However, Hutchinson may be the man Lewis saw loitering opposite the entrance to Miller's Court or he may be the Bethnal Green Botherer/Britannia man. Going to the police may have been him attempting to deflect from be the latter and place himself as being the former.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

I think I need to refresh myself with all the various stories in full. I was thinking of "retelling" as in Lewis at inquest and to the press under a different name (but I need to double check on details, like dates, etc) and have Hutchinson's story in front of me as well.

Hi Jeff.

Yes, well Kennedy spoke to the press on Saturday, Lewis didn't tell her story to anyone, until the inquest on Monday.

I have Hutchinson in my head watching Kelly and Astrakhan man go into Miller's Court, so if Lewis sees Hutchinson waiting, Kelly and Astrakhan man must already be in the room, hence Lewis couldn't have seen her. But, I see what you're getting at above, which could change that.

It's not always easy to portray a sequence of events when debating isolated comments made by a witness.
So, from Lewis's testimony, derived from the inquest record & the various press coverage, this is how events unfolded, in my view.


Lewis is walking down Dorset street towards Millers Court.
Ahead of her is a man & a woman, the woman is hatless, and the worse for drink.
Lewis saw this couple enter Millers Court, some distance ahead.
Then, Lewis arrives at the Court herself, this is when she first noticed a man standing on the other side of the street.
Lewis enters the passage and notices there is no-one in the Court (which means, the couple she saw must have gone indoors).

Also, to get the details fresh again about when Hutchinson claims to have left, etc. I thought he said he waited 45 minutes, so something like 2:00 - 2:45, but I suppose if Astrakhan man leaves shortly after that then Kelly could get to the Britannia again by 3:00 to meet another man. Again, I think I should brush up on all these, with the details of each in front of me again, particularly with your idea of the story "flash backing" as it were, in mind when having a look.

- Jeff

The 45 minutes he waited is not precisely known, and was only an estimate anyway. He only looked at a clock down on Whitechapel High Street at 1:50 or thereabouts, then he left Dorset street at 3:00. Everything in between is flexible to varying degrees.
So, his 45 minutes vigil could be 2:05 - 2:50, or 2:10 - 2:55, or maybe it was only 40 minutes, or was it really 50 minutes?

[Sam Flynn]

What's baffling Gareth is that you are eliminating any possible way this could have happened.

Yup. Because I find the whole proposition absurd.

[Wickerman]

How is it baffling? Do you not find it extremely unlikely that two separate women saw and did such remarkably similar things? That they both shacked up in a small room opposite the site of the worst Ripper murder ever, within hours of it happening, and that they were both "ear-witnesses" to that murder? Frankly, it stretches credibility to Lechmerian levels.
Lewis's argument with her man precipitated her leaving Gt Pearl St for Miller's Court, simple as that - she wasn't honouring a pre-arranged appointment, as if it's likely that two people would arrange to meet in someone else's tiny flat in the small hours of the morning anyway.

I'll tell you what is baffling, though - the excuses you're having to make in order to keep the Kennedy fantasy alive.

What's baffling Gareth is that you are eliminating any possible way this could have happened.

You prefer to demand it didn't happen because it couldn't. Yet, we already know these two were out together as best friends two nights before. It's not like we are talking about two strangers. For all we know they might be out together most nights, and because they are best friends they know each other's schedule, when they'll be home and at what hour.
You are dismissing all these possibilities in favour of "it didn't happen, because it couldn't".

That isn't even an argument, it's just emotion.