Hutch's Man

[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]

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]

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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[Busy Beaver]

All of this could have happened! Blotchy (0.00am), Astrachan Man 0.300am), The Ripper (0.400am). Would it have been possible that the Ripper was waiting at the back of millar's court somewhere near the outside toilets and just happened to notice that MJK used her room, for entertaining, waited for MJK to come out when Astrachan Man left or at some point, and put himself into position to allow him into her room? Makes sense if no-one saw people leave or enter the court around the time of the killing.

[Sam Flynn]

Why would the Ripper be skulking in a "domestic" dead-end like Miller's Court, when he would have been more likely to find vulnerable, homeless victims on the open streets? This tactic worked for him on three/four other occasions, and it would work for the (non-Ripper) Whitechapel murderers too.

[Curious Cat]

Show me where Abberline said he changed his mind.

I read somewhere that Abberline distanced himself from his initial enthusiasm for Hutchinson's account within a week or so. However, to search back through where I saw that comment/post again will take me a while and it certainly won't be tonight. Far too tired.

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.

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.

Show me where Lewis said this at the inquest.

[Wickerman]

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.

Tell me this Gareth.

Why have you chosen the "passed up the court" as the error?, you have said before because it only appears in one newspaper.
Yet, "further on" only appears in one newspaper. It is repeated in an evening paper, but the coverage is so greatly edited down it isn't likely the Echo had a reporter present. As with many evening papers they copy from the morning Dailies, plus there are other instances where the Echo have for sure copied from the Telegraph.
So, the only for sure example of "further on" is in the Daily Telegraph.

So, why, in your opinion, is "further on" correct, and "passed up the court" is not?

[Sam Flynn]

Tell me this Gareth.

Why have you chosen the "passed up the court" as the error?

I have no reason to trust the Telegraph less than the Daily News, as the Telegraph is a generally reliable source. Besides, there is no earthly reason why the Telegraph should have inserted the words "further on" if they hadn't actually been uttered by the witness.

If the couple, possibly Mary Kelly and her killer, had indeed entered Miller's Court, don't you think that this rather more "interesting", if not important, fact would have appeared in every paper, and not just as an edited, summarised sentence the Daily News?

Or is it not more likely that, when reporting of LEWIS's "passing up the court", the DN reporter/editor made a mistake and thought that the couple had done so as well?

[Wickerman]

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.

Ah, so you can accept Hutch was standing watching a man & a woman in Dorset street?
And, Hutch also described Kelly as, tipsy.
Do you also accept that Mary Cox saw Kelly earlier that night out on the street, and Kelly had no hat on?

So now, Sarah Lewis comes along saying she saw a man & woman in Dorset street, where the woman was hatless, and the worse for drink.
And, as Lewis arrived at the court she noticed a man standing opposite, looking up the passage.

Hutch tells us that the man & Kelly went up the passage.
Lewis tells us the couple went up the passage.
Hutch tells us Kelly & her man went inside her room.
Lewis tells us that when she reached the court, the couple were not there.

Yet you do not accept Lewis & Hutch could be talking about the same couple?

How many more points of coincidence do we need?

[Wickerman]

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.

But it's the same old story, officers in retirement tend to spin a yarn that is half fact, half fiction. These stories can't be relied on.

[Wickerman]

I read somewhere that Abberline distanced himself from his initial enthusiasm for Hutchinson's account within a week or so. However, to search back through where I saw that comment/post again will take me a while and it certainly won't be tonight. Far too tired.

I asked because you might have just repeated some authors opinion, or you might have been influenced by a press story in the Star.
The fact is, and I mean 'fact' not theory, not 'opinion'. The fact is nothing has survived by Abberline about Hutchinson or his theory after his interview.
The newspaper story has no link to the police, and so has no basis in fact.

What we do read in the press following the publication of Hutchinson's story is the police initially viewed Astrachan as the prime suspect, but within 24 hours it seems the police were also showing interest in Blotchy as a second suspect.
A week after the inquest the press were reporting the police hunting for two equal suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan, this was on the 19th Nov.
We have nothing after that.

Show me where Lewis said this at the inquest.

I gave you the quotes, and the sources.

[Curious Cat]

I asked because you might have just repeated some authors opinion, or you might have been influenced by a press story in the Star.
The fact is, and I mean 'fact' not theory, not 'opinion'. The fact is nothing has survived by Abberline about Hutchinson or his theory after his interview.
The newspaper story has no link to the police, and so has no basis in fact.

What we do read in the press following the publication of Hutchinson's story is the police initially viewed Astrachan as the prime suspect, but within 24 hours it seems the police were also showing interest in Blotchy as a second suspect.
A week after the inquest the press were reporting the police hunting for two equal suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan, this was on the 19th Nov.
We have nothing after that.




I gave you the quotes, and the sources.

You didn't quote the inquest.

I asked because you might have repeated a mis-quote made in the press at the time and might have been influenced by it.


You forget I'm relatively new to the finer details of the case and so come to the evidence objectively, take pinches of salt but also link information together that create a wider picture. Aside from who saw what couple and whether or not they went up the passage, I objectively have an issue with Hutchinson's account separate from any crossover with Lewis' statement.

He is walking away from the spot he says he saw Mary Kelly and Astrachan man meet. He then apparently jumps to a location that gives him no eyeline to their position. How does he see Astrachan put his arm around Mary Kelly? How does he get to the Queen's Head pub while simultaneously witnessing Astrachan's approach when he has his back to him?

Never mind the detailed description of Astrachan, the logistics of Hutchinson's account are fairly sketchy.