Hypothetical

[Michael W Richards]

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

Papers printed this story over weekend. Plus Word of Mouth across the East End. Over a 4 day period.

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.

That virtually the entire area knew about the loitering man before Monday is clear. If it wasnt him, Marys "friend"....which a 4 day delay suggests, then he is claiming to be someone else. By claiming to be that man AND a friend of Marys that changes the perception of what Wideawake was doing there 180 degrees. I suggest it was intentional. Youve called that "made up". Intrest6ing choice, but not correct. Since it contains indisputable facts, not such a wild concept. People around here seem to think its a wild concept to suggest Marys killer was known to her....when the evidence suggests someone was in her room while she was undressed, apparently with her consent..in the middle of the night. Wild ideas like that are called logical extrapolations based on known facts.

You've accused Hutchinson of lying, without any evidence whatsoever.

Just a logical deduction based on his ridiculous description made in the dark at a distance, his delay coming forward and the rest of his story content.

You've suggested he knew about Lewis's testimony, without any evidence whatsoever.

Papers. Weekend...4 days, word of mouth.... like the above?

You've asserted Hutchinson was discredited, yet we know the police were still investigating his story a week after he came forward.

By November 14th there is a printed story that he was discredited. People also claim that Schwartz is relevant because he is still discussed later on...had he actually have been so we would have his Inquest statement to discuss.

Clearly, all the points you insist on above are pure fiction and devoid of any merit.

Gave his story late...fact. Used details that were hard to believe...fact. Had 4 days to learn of a story that was published Friday and again Saturday, by the ONE witness who saw Wideawake, misattributed as 2 people....if youre going to be an a** Im not going to stay quiet on the fact that you are the problem understanding that Kennedy and Lewis are actually the same story,,,even if they were 2 people...which they werent.....papers on Nov 15th stated he was discreditted....fact. Fiction, devoid of merit huh? really....

Do you want to go back to the drawing board and start again?

Nope, Ive read all angles of the cases and I am content with Hutchinson was either Wideawake and lied about other things, or he wasnt and assumed that role which he knew of due to 4 days having elapsed and papers running the story. That changed how wideawake was perceived. Facts. My speculation is that he did so with the intention of changing Wideawake, perceived by officials as benign, to benevolent.

anyway......

[Wickerman]

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.

Ah, the pardon yes, I thought you were referring to the reward. Even so, it only goes to show the police took Lewis's statement very seriously. It doesn't mean Hutchinson had any advance warning.

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.

But that is entirely fictional with no basis in fact.

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.

Flight, on what grounds? - "dark clothes and a Wideawake"?

So, now, in your wildest imagination you choose to create a conspiracy between The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

The Good, being Hutchinson, who you say is quite innocent of any wrongdoing, just desperate for cash he accepts a bribe to pose as an accomplice to police.
The Bad, is the murderer, who accompanied Kelly to her room and did the dirty deed.
The Ugly, is the real accomplice, being the faceless, shapeless, shadowy figure, who was seen by a woman (Lewis).

Question: how does Mr Ugly know the name of the woman who saw him?
How does he know she is even to be called as a witness?
And, how does Mr Ugly know she has included him in her testimony?
Oh so much guesswork.

Now, if Mr Ugly & Mr Good are not identical twins, how do they know that Sarah Lewis is not going to say, "That ain't 'im copper", if Abberline chooses to have Mr Good included in an identity parade in front of Lewis?
Dorset St. is only 25 feet wide, wall to wall, not including the sidewalk that both were standing on. So their actual bodies were probably merely 20 feet apart.
The fact she didn't give any details to police like; age, height, moustache/beard, physical appearance, etc. does not mean she couldn't reject the man on first sight.

[Wickerman]

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

Papers printed this story over weekend. Plus Word of Mouth across the East End. Over a 4 day period.

No papers printed Lewis's story at all.
The first we hear about it is at the inquest.
No evidence of rumor on the streets either.
So, that argument is trashed.

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.

That virtually the entire area knew about the loitering man before Monday is clear.

It's my suspicion Michael, that you have not done much reading of the papers. Not one newspaper mentions the loiterer at any time, over the weekend. His presence was a total surprise on Monday when he was first mentioned at the inquest.


Cont...

If it wasnt him, Marys "friend"....which a 4 day delay suggests, then he is claiming to be someone else. By claiming to be that man AND a friend of Marys that changes the perception of what Wideawake was doing there 180 degrees. I suggest it was intentional. Youve called that "made up". Intrest6ing choice, but not correct. Since it contains indisputable facts, not such a wild concept.

I have not seen you use any indisputable facts in your hypothesis that Hutchinson was posing as an accomplice.

Cont...

People around here seem to think its a wild concept to suggest Marys killer was known to her....when the evidence suggests someone was in her room while she was undressed, apparently with her consent..in the middle of the night. Wild ideas like that are called logical extrapolations based on known facts.

The fact she was found in her nightdress(?) only means she was entertaining when killed. It does not mean she knew her killer. It was customary for a prostitute to undress for their client when they have a room to conduct business. A client pays more to be taken to a room, as opposed to a quick hows-yer-father in some dark ally.
Also, you cannot rule out the possibility that her killer undressed her before he began the mutilations, which totally destroys your argument.
So, there doesn't seem to be much basis for what you claim.

You've accused Hutchinson of lying, without any evidence whatsoever.

Just a logical deduction based on his ridiculous description made in the dark at a distance, his delay coming forward and the rest of his story content.

"Based on his ridiculous description"?
Perhaps, what you deem to be ridiculous is just your lack of experience?
For example, had you been a police officer who had taken similarly detailed statements, like Stewart Evans had, then you wouldn't deem Hutchinson's statement to be ridiculous.

Also, the sighting was not at a distance, Hutch stood under a lamp while Astrachan passed right in front of him.

The delay coming forward is easily explained if you only read those newspapers.
On Friday, the police believed Kelly had been murdered late Friday morning, about 9:00 am, or thereabouts. The papers kept repeating both Coxwell's & Morris Lewis's story about Kelly being alive after 8:00 am on Friday on the Saturday.

What possible reason would Hutch have to think the man (Astrachan) he saw with Kelly about 2:30 am Friday morning, would have anything to do with her murder almost 7 hours after, at 9:00-9:30 am?
He had no reason to come forward with a story that happened 7 or more hours before her murder.

It was only on Sunday when the Lloyds Weekly newspaper published a story that the police now believe Kelly died around 2:00 or 3:00 am Friday morning.
Hutch said he talked to one of the residents where he was staying, who convinced him to go to police, which he did on Monday evening, after work presumably.

Once again, all the points you raise are easily countered, it seems you lack any conviction to thoroughly research your arguments before you post them.

You've asserted Hutchinson was discredited, yet we know the police were still investigating his story a week after he came forward.

By November 14th there is a printed story that he was discredited.....

Well, it was the 15th actually, but as the police were still making news in the papers 4 days later on the 19th, reported to be conducting investigations into the whereabouts of both Blotchy & Astrachan, it is quite obvious the 'discredited' article was nothing but guesswork by that one particular newspaper, and very notably, no other.

Hutchinson's story had definitely not been discredited by the police.

You do really need to start reading the papers and getting your so-called 'facts' right if you are serious about conducting an argument.

[caz]

Nope, Ive read all angles of the cases and I am content with Hutchinson was either Wideawake and lied about other things, or he wasnt and assumed that role which he knew of due to 4 days having elapsed and papers running the story. That changed how wideawake was perceived. Facts. My speculation is that he did so with the intention of changing Wideawake, perceived by officials as benign, to benevolent.

anyway......

How are you defining 'benign' and 'benevolent', Michael? I'm now wondering if English is indeed my second language.

[Losmandris]

I think the only people we can be completely sure of seeing the murderer are his victims. The other witnesses are for me, just a little too unreliable or inconsistent. There are too many variables involved with their statements to make them wholly believable like poor lighting, no access to reliable time pieces etc.

[clark2710]

I think the only people we can be completely sure of seeing the murderer are his victims. The other witnesses are for me, just a little too unreliable or inconsistent. There are too many variables involved with their statements to make them wholly believable like poor lighting, no access to reliable time pieces etc.

well yes detective but the dead don't speak unfortunately

[Losmandris]

well yes detective but the dead don't speak unfortunately

Sorry I thought we were playing at hypotheticals here? All the other witnesses are no more dead than the victims!

[clark2710]

Sorry I thought we were playing at hypotheticals here? All the other witnesses are no more dead than the victims!

LOL yes I see your point. I am going to stop responding to things so close to bed when I'm tired

[Losmandris]

LOL yes I see your point. I am going to stop responding to things so close to bed when I'm tired

[Marie Jeanette Davies]

I'd like to talk to Mary Ann Cox, Sarah Lewis and George Hutchinson. If Hutchinson wasn't the Ripper and he didn't invent Astrakhan Man, the latter could have been the murderer. My top suspect is Blotchy Face though; in this case, Cox might have had a good look at Jack. Alternatively, I'd go with Lawende as the witness who could have spotted Catherine Eddowes with her killer.