Hypothetical

[Sleuth1888]

Huthinson's statement is over-compensating with erroneous additional detail no other witness has given. I have always struggled with the description he gave. It's like he has a mental image of what a "flash Jewish man" would look like, and this was the best stereotype he could come up with. Gold chain, spats, ashkatran coat - was he the first prototype of a pimp?

He saw something, but I believe the description he gave was not it. The fact it took him the best part of three days to come forward is jarring also. He would be the one I would need to get clearer answers from.

Yep! Astrakan Man wouldn't have got two steps anywhere in Whitechapel without being mugged. Not with that gold chain of his!

[Wickerman]

Yep! Astrakan Man wouldn't have got two steps anywhere in Whitechapel without being mugged. Not with that gold chain of his!

Ah, but Joseph Isaacs was a poser, with a reputation for dressing up to impersonate others. On one occasion he was arrested for impersonating a Detective. Isaacs wore an imitation gold watch chain, with no watch on the end of it.
Isaacs lived off Dorset St. in Little Paternoster Row, so you may have assumed wrong about the type of people who could come & go in Dorset St.
There is honour among thieves, one rule is to never pick on your own. A crook who lives among crooks is often untouchable in his own district.

[Michael W Richards]

Your question here is problematic from the outset Wick, there was no viable witness sighting of anyone who might have been the killer of ANY Canonical victim. Not to say there arent suspects. Just none that were seen just before or just after the kills. Some one mentioned Mrs Long, well....with Cadosche in the very next yard hearing a voice just after 5 we already have a time Annie and her killer are in that yard. Before 5:30. With that we also have an approximate TOD.

Its one of the examples of people still using witnesses that can already be discounted pretty summarily. Like Israel. Its why we still debate certain aspects, because people cling to unsound, improbable, or discountable statements.

[Wickerman]

Your question here is problematic from the outset Wick, there was no viable witness sighting of anyone who might have been the killer of ANY Canonical victim.

When you say "from the outset" Michael, I assume you mean my previous post No.7, not the one above?

I do agree with you that no true suspect has been identified with a victim at the time of the murder. My interest in Lewis's story is to fill in the many blanks around what Hutchinson saw. Her account only demonstrates that Hutch's story cannot be dismissed. Whether the stranger was all blinged-up as described is another issue, but Hutch did see Kelly with a man that much is verified by Lewis.
So, Hutch getting the wrong night is out of the question, though accepting his story as basically accurate still does not finger Astrachan as the murderer. To cast doubt on that theory we only need to turn to Mrs Kennedy who described seeing Kelly out about (just after?) three o'clock that morning. So, presumably this was subsequent to her liaison with Astrachan, and after Hutchinson had left Dorset St.

While a handful of posters prefer to dismiss witness statements with the most frivolous of excuses, including Kennedy (because she was not called to the inquest), or Lewis (because she was not included in Hutchinson's story), or Hutchinson himself (because some prefer to believe he lied). Their bias does not change the historical record which will outlast these modern competing theories that have no real substance behind them.

Not to say there arent suspects. Just none that were seen just before or just after the kills. Some one mentioned Mrs Long, well....with Cadosche in the very next yard hearing a voice just after 5 we already have a time Annie and her killer are in that yard. Before 5:30. With that we also have an approximate TOD.

Certainly, but Mrs Long's description could refer to any male of the required age. It's not very helpful.

[Michael W Richards]

When you say "from the outset" Michael, I assume you mean my previous post No.7, not the one above?

I do agree with you that no true suspect has been identified with a victim at the time of the murder. My interest in Lewis's story is to fill in the many blanks around what Hutchinson saw. Her account only demonstrates that Hutch's story cannot be dismissed. Whether the stranger was all blinged-up as described is another issue, but Hutch did see Kelly with a man that much is verified by Lewis.
So, Hutch getting the wrong night is out of the question, though accepting his story as basically accurate still does not finger Astrachan as the murderer. To cast doubt on that theory we only need to turn to Mrs Kennedy who described seeing Kelly out about (just after?) three o'clock that morning. So, presumably this was subsequent to her liaison with Astrachan, and after Hutchinson had left Dorset St.

While a handful of posters prefer to dismiss witness statements with the most frivolous of excuses, including Kennedy (because she was not called to the inquest), or Lewis (because she was not included in Hutchinson's story), or Hutchinson himself (because some prefer to believe he lied). Their bias does not change the historical record which will outlast these modern competing theories that have no real substance behind them.




Certainly, but Mrs Long's description could refer to any male of the required age. It's not very helpful.

I personally dont believe that Lewis and Mrs Kennedy are different people, but I do agree with you...someone was seen loitering and watching the courtyard on the very same night a brutal murder takes place. Its hard to imagine that his vigil and her murder are completely unconnected. But I agree with the consensus law enforcement had on the idea he was in all likelihood an Accomplice. Its the sole reason that this time they offered one I think.

What is fascinating to me is that Hutchinson literally places himself in that hat, but as a friend...looking out for Mary. The polar opposite of an Accomplice in her murder. A real shift in perception there......I think thats the reason he came in with the story in the first place,..to make the loitering man benign. And I dont believe for a minute that he was.

[Wickerman]

I personally dont believe that Lewis and Mrs Kennedy are different people,...

Yes, it seems we have Phil Sugden to thank for that, yet his opinion seems to have been published before it was known that Mrs Kennedy lived at No.2 Millers Court, and was the married daughter of Mr & Mrs Gallagher at that address.
Yet Sarah Lewis lived in Great Pearl Street, and was only a friend of Kennedy.

...but I do agree with you...someone was seen loitering and watching the courtyard on the very same night a brutal murder takes place. Its hard to imagine that his vigil and her murder are completely unconnected. But I agree with the consensus law enforcement had on the idea he was in all likelihood an Accomplice. Its the sole reason that this time they offered one I think.

I don't remember reading any official consensus, but it seems the issue of a reward was debated in the House of Commons earlier, the same day Hutchinson came forward. So, it is quite possible that someone reacted to Lewis's testimony and assumed she had seen an accomplice, but the authorities declined to post a reward. Then, later that same day Hutchinson came forward and justified the presence of that loiterer, it was him, so no need for the reward after all.

What is fascinating to me is that Hutchinson literally places himself in that hat, but as a friend...looking out for Mary. The polar opposite of an Accomplice in her murder. A real shift in perception there......I think thats the reason he came in with the story in the first place,..to make the loitering man benign. And I dont believe for a minute that he was.

I get it, and you're not alone, but apart from speculation, what do you really have of any substance to claim he must have been an accomplice?
Coming forward to offer himself up is not what your average accomplice to a murder will do, it is far too risky.

Far more likely is that he would have fled to put as much distance between him & the scene of the crime as possible. After all, it's not like Lewis's description was unique - a man in dark clothes (like every other man), wearing a Wideawake - very common, is not sufficient to justify the loiterer thinking the police will be at his door.
The description Lewis gave is even less helpful than Mrs Long's, and he didn't come forward, neither did red-neckerchief-man from Duke St., nor Blotchy or Astrachan.
So that argument clearly doesn't hold water.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, it seems we have Phil Sugden to thank for that, yet his opinion seems to have been published before it was known that Mrs Kennedy lived at No.2 Millers Court, and was the married daughter of Mr & Mrs Gallagher at that address.
Yet Sarah Lewis lived in Great Pearl Street, and was only a friend of Kennedy.

I remain unconvinced these are 2 separate stories, but...


I don't remember reading any official consensus, but it seems the issue of a reward was debated in the House of Commons earlier, the same day Hutchinson came forward. So, it is quite possible that someone reacted to Lewis's testimony and assumed she had seen an accomplice, but the authorities declined to post a reward. Then, later that same day Hutchinson came forward and justified the presence of that loiterer, it was him, so no need for the reward after all.

In actuality the Pardon offer was issued Saturday afternoon and its the last official document Warren signed. The pardon offer was issued before anyone knew of a George Hutchinson. But they knew about the loitering Wideawake...as Hutchinson would have.

I get it, and you're not alone, but apart from speculation, what do you really have of any substance to claim he must have been an accomplice?
Coming forward to offer himself up is not what your average accomplice to a murder will do, it is far too risky.

I dont suggest that Hutchinson was an accomplice, in fact I doubt he was anywhere near there that night. I do suggest that its possible he gave the statement so the authorities would be less convinced the man seen was really working with the killer in room 13. I think the killer or accomplice instigated that statement.

Far more likely is that he would have fled to put as much distance between him & the scene of the crime as possible. After all, it's not like Lewis's description was unique - a man in dark clothes (like every other man), wearing a Wideawake - very common, is not sufficient to justify the loiterer thinking the police will be at his door.
The description Lewis gave is even less helpful than Mrs Long's, and he didn't come forward, neither did red-neckerchief-man from Duke St., nor Blotchy or Astrachan.
So that argument clearly doesn't hold water.

Wideawake Man is certainly suspicious, and with the quick issue of the Pardon Offer, they might have considered flight by the person seen. Hutchinson creates a new safe character in Wideawake, and therefore the immediate risk to the actual Wideawake was eliminated....until he (Hutch) is discredited of course.

[Joshua Rogan]

I dont suggest that Hutchinson was an accomplice, in fact I doubt he was anywhere near there that night. I do suggest that its possible he gave the statement so the authorities would be less convinced the man seen was really working with the killer in room 13. I think the killer or accomplice instigated that statement.

So, if I've got this straight....you're saying that Hutchinson wasn't an accomplice, but voluntarily made himself into an accomplice by saying he was the person suspected of being an accomplice but who wasn"t actually an accomplice....

....are you sure you're not overthinking this?

[Michael W Richards]

So, if I've got this straight....you're saying that Hutchinson wasn't an accomplice, but voluntarily made himself into an accomplice by saying he was the person suspected of being an accomplice but who wasn"t actually an accomplice....

....are you sure you're not overthinking this?

No.

Im saying that its possible Hutchinson was giving a story that was intended to throw off any scent given by the loitering man, who the authorities strongly suspected...enough to issue a pardon offer on Saturday...was an accomplice of Marys killer. Hutchinsons story, if believed, makes that man a friend of Marys looking out for her. Complete opposite of an accomplice in her murder. So....did someone say to Hutch...heres some money, go to the cops and say you were Wideawke and that you knew Mary. That would remove the malicious character of Wideawake...and they wouldnt be looking for him anymore. When in all likelihood, he really was an accomplice.

Im saying he lied to take the heat off the supected accomplice. Likely for money. Unless he did it as a favour...but I think its more likely some dough.

[caz]

Has anything like this ever happened in real life?

Hutchinson is an accomplice, so he is meant to be watching out for anyone who might come snooping near Kelly's room, while the killer is in there taking her to pieces.

But he is not a very accomplished accomplice because he allows himself to be snooped on by Sarah Lewis, who sees him watching the court and gives inquest testimony to that effect. As far as we know, he doesn't see Lewis himself, although he is meant to be keeping his eyes peeled, not towards the room, but away from it, for anyone approaching.

Somehow, Hutchinson gets wind of what Lewis saw and gets windy, thinking the game will be up if this woman spots him again because of his distinctive headgear and tells the cops.

He's not very wide awake, is he? Instead of taking off to Romford, until any search for him is abandoned, or simply exchanging his titfer for a nice baker boy hat, he goes to Abberline to admit he was hanging around the murder scene for 45 minutes because he was curious about the man in there with Kelly. And he does it because his partner in crime pays him to put himself forward. You'd think he'd be the one having to pay the killer, for being the worst accomplice in criminal history.

[caz]

So, if I've got this straight....you're saying that Hutchinson wasn't an accomplice, but voluntarily made himself into an accomplice by saying he was the person suspected of being an accomplice but who wasn"t actually an accomplice....

....are you sure you're not overthinking this?

It would seem, Josh, having just reread Michael's post, that I misunderstood him too.

If I've got it straight now, Hutchinson was an accomplice of sorts, but wasn't the loitering man Sarah Lewis saw, who was the main accomplice. So Hutchinson was paid to pose as this incompetent loitering accomplice, and to put himself at the scene for 45 minutes, saying he was merely curious about the man in with Kelly. And then he just had to cross his fingers and hope that Abberline would believe him and not arrest him as the loitering accomplice.

Simples. I'd have done it meself for a couple of bob.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Simples. I'd have done it meself for a couple of bob.

Okay, so just to be clear here you are talking about being an accomplice and not....uh....you know, that other thing.

c.d.

[caz]

Cheeky!

[Michael W Richards]

Cheeky!

Thats a nicer word that I would use. Just wondering how many here are ESL? The premise that Hutchinson was claiming to be someone he already knew was seen and creating a new persona for that man other than the menacing likely accomplice the police thought he was....see extraordinary issuance of Pardon Offer Saturday...oh wait, isnt that exactly waht happened by virtue of his statement?

So suggesting that was done intentionally might be supported by the fact that it actually happened? Its amazing how many people cannot understand simple to understand premises...even when they are in fact staring them in the face.

[Wickerman]

Thats a nicer word that I would use. Just wondering how many here are ESL? The premise that Hutchinson was claiming to be someone he already knew was seen and creating a new persona for that man other than the menacing likely accomplice the police thought he was....see extraordinary issuance of Pardon Offer Saturday...oh wait, isnt that exactly waht happened by virtue of his statement?

So suggesting that was done intentionally might be supported by the fact that it actually happened? Its amazing how many people cannot understand simple to understand premises...even when they are in fact staring them in the face.

On what grounds are you claiming "he already knew was seen"?

All you have ever done Michael is fabricate a story around Hutchinson.
This isn't a contest to find who can dream up a fictional story about Hutchinson, anyone can do that, no evidence is necessary. All you need is a vivid imagination.

You've accused Hutchinson of lying, without any evidence whatsoever.
You've suggested he knew about Lewis's testimony, without any evidence whatsoever.
You've asserted Hutchinson was discredited, yet we know the police were still investigating his story a week after he came forward.

Clearly, all the points you insist on above are pure fiction and devoid of any merit.
Do you want to go back to the drawing board and start again?