Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

Just a small point on Hutchinson's height. If he lied about the Astrakhan encounter, it's likely that he ballsed up the height issue in his mind anyway. Even if he didn't (ha!), the felt hat worn over the eyes would have cast a shadow over Astrakhan's face, meaning that Hutchinson would have to stoop irrespective of height.

[Chava]

So here's what we are left with:

Mary Ann Cox sees Kelly go up the court and into her room with Blotchy Face who is carrying a pot of beer (likely to be just a pint that he was drinking in his own pint pot. You could do that in a pub then as now I believe, bring your own mug in.) BF may have been a casual trick she picked up. Or he may not have been a trick at all. Kelly brings him back to her room with the bed and everything, and then proceeds to serenade him for ages. This isn't something you'd do with a client, especially if you need money. If you need money, you go for high volume and fast turnaround. However Kelly was drunk, and may have just picked him up in the pub because he said he would stand her a drink or three. No suggestion of money beyond that, and Kelly feels like singing...

Lizzie Prater stands at the entrance of the court from 1.00 am on. She doesn't mention seeing Cox leave--although that may just be an oversight in the statement transcription or she may not have been asked that question since the police are obviously concentrating on Kelly. Nor apparently does she see Blotchy Face leave. And that is a question I think she would have been asked. Either way, she's in chatting to McCarthy at around 1.20 am. Doesn't hear Kelly singing. doesn't see or hear BF leaving.

Hutchinson sees Kelly at 2.00 am. She is 'spreeish' which means she's still slightly drunk. But she's much more focussed than she was earlier in the evening. She hits him up for 6d and when he doesn't have it she moves on down the line and immediately finds another customer whom she brings back with her to the court.

Sarah Lewis goes into the court at 2.30 am. She sees a short stout man in a wideawake hat looking up the court as if he was waiting for someone. (Note that Hutchinson says 'he bent down' to look Mr A in the face. So unless Mr A is a Little Person, Hutchinson is tall.)

No one apart from Kudzu sees or hears Kelly past 1.10-15 am.

And something else which I find interesting although I'm not sure where it takes us: no one in these statements intersect except possibly Lewis and Kudzu. We believe Cox, but no one else has come forward to say 'yes I saw Kelly with a blotchy-faced man in the 10 Bells/The Ringers...' Is there anything in McCarthy's statement that says 'I was as the store late and Lizzie Prater came in for a chat...' Does anyone say 'I was past the court and saw Lizzie standing there...'?

Several people noted having heard Kelly singing that night. But that was after the whole thing was over, and could just have been because they had heard that she was said to have been singing and wanted to be part of the whole thing.

The thing about the Kelly case is that there is a bunch of uncorroborated evidence and then there's Hutchinson who comes forward after the evidence was taken and so could have manufactured something. Certainly Kelly's behaviour with Blotchy Face doesn't sound like a regular hooker/trick transaction. But then later on in the evening she's all business.

It's like Cox is seeing one Kelly. Hutchinson is seeing another. Prater isn't seeing or hearing her at all. Neither is Lewis.

Can anyone name the precise time that Hutchinson became aware that there was a suspect sighted by Lewis at 2:30 a.m. 9th Nov? I'm talking newspaper report here, forget word of mouth, because it would not have happened. Because up until this time he was oblivious of the man he was about to impersonate, and therefore out of the frame altogether

If you believe this, then may I suggest you look at my website 'lovely beachfront homes in Wigan for sale cheap at $1M each.' You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to make such a statement. Word of mouth would have been rampant in the LVP right after the murder and it wouldn't have died down for days if not weeks. Please don't think that Sarah Lewis kept quiet, went to the police, gave her statement and then went home and had a nice cup of tea. She would have told all her pals and they'd have told all their pals. Add that to the journos who were buzzing around the area like flies round a week-old Eccles cake and you have a situation where information is leaking like crazy. Hutchinson says he's been on the tramp and so didn't hear about the death but I find this extraordinarily difficult to believe. His statement may or may not be the real deal, but to take everything he says at face value is a mistake in my opinion. And to believe that he was 'oblivious' of Lewis's statement when you have no direct knowledge of his movements apart from his own account of them is naive at best.

[Observer]

This once once again to Chava Jon and Perry

My quote......"This to both Chava, and Perry. Hutchinson spent the whole week-end oblivious of the fact that he would be presenting himself at Commercial Street police station on Monday evening."

And you know this how?

Can anyone name the precise time that Hutchinson became aware that there was a suspect sighted by Lewis at 2:30 a.m. 9th Nov? I'm talking newspaper report here, forget word of mouth, because it would not have happened. Because up until this time he was oblivious of the man he was about to impersonate, and therefore out of the frame altogether

All the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

Nobody disputes the reality that the killer went to pains to avoid capture, but like all serial killers operating within a dense and nocturnal population, he could only do so much. W you dismiss police-endorsed eyewitness sightings such as Lawende's on the basis that the killer "wouldn't do that", what you really mean is that the Lawende sightings doesn't gel together very well with your image of the killer. I think that's a very bad argument. The killer was not an invisible phantom and was certainly seen. That's irrefutable - he couldn't do anything about it. He had to approach his victims at some point, and unless they were soliciting in pitch black alleys all the time, the chances are very strong that he'd be seen in the process. Many serial killers are seen at some point releative to the victim's time of death, and that holds true for the most organised ones.

Kate Eddowes,in my view,is more likely to have entered Mitre Square from the Mitre Street entrance

Because that way, it would hang together with your super-organizational genuis image you've got mapped out in your head in relation to the killer's personality. Sorry, but if reliable police-endorsed eyewitness evidence paints a different picture, it's your mental image of the killer that needs revising, not the evidence.

The killer was seen, probably one more than one occasion, and it's a remote outside possibility that Lawende didn't see Kate and her killer, not a probability. Same with Stride. The first doctor on the scene placed her death at between 12:46am and 12:56am. An eyewitness saw the victim being attacked just before then. Ergo, unless Schwartz lied, the attacker he saw was probably her killer.

I rather think the proof of the pudding is in the eating-------Harvey didnt see a thing,neither did Watkins the Ripper got away from both murders scotch free.

Because the killer got away before then, assuming Harvey was honest and not covering his tracks. What about Cadosche? When he heard the thud against the fence and the "No" from the backyard of #29, he didn't venture a peak over. Does that mean the killer was a "master of stealth" on that occasion because he'd somehow anticipated Cadosche's bowel movements kicking in at that moment, or did he just get lucky? Gee, lemme think...

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ben,
Its an image of the stealth and secrecy of the killer correlates with what we know about him.The cops dont have an idea of who he was according to Henry Smith and Abberline.
And yet there was an increased police force and several vigilante groups,including the St Jude"s one comprising the University Settlement ones from Toynbee Hall.
The Ripper killed in a densely populated area which was patrolled every 15 minutes by beat policemen.In other words the area was covered and yet even in this situation he managed five murders at least ,often having to remove clothing to carry out the mutilations. He seems to have been nearly caught in the act,when working within the beats of two policemen in Bucks Row,as he left his victim with fewer mutilations .
With regards to Liz Stride, he took a very great risk with people coming in and out all the time and people on their doorsteps close by.But she was found in the "pitch dark"----not on the pavement in Berner Street where Schwartz saw that man push her over.Incidently,there were several people in Berner Street at this point ,none of whom saw the incident which Schwartz claimed he witnessed.
Kate Eddowes,in my view,is more likely to have entered Mitre Square from the Mitre Street entrance, which was right next to the dark corner she was murdered in.That way her murderer and herself would have had a better chance of working out PC Watkins"s movement"s as he arrived from Leadenhall,turned into Mitre Street,into Mitre Square and of again up Mitre Street.Mitre Square,like Bucks Row was sandwiched between the two police beats of Harvey and Watkins.It would have been easier to watch out for Watkins,while keeping an eye out for Harvey ,from the very darkest corner of Mitre Square,PC Harvey"s task was not Mitre Square ,just Church Passage,and to my mind it seems so very unlikely that this murderer would have been standing in that same Church Passage and rather stupidly allowing the three men to see him full face.
I rather think the proof of the pudding is in the eating-------Harvey didnt see a thing,neither did Watkins the Ripper got away from both murders scotch free. Thats what I mean by him being a master of stealth and secrecy.He completely outwitted the beat policemen and every effort to catch him was foiled,even when everyone in Whitechapel was keeping watch.
Best
Norma

Hi Ben,

On your last thoughts last post, I think Schwartz saw Liz's killer, and I think Lawende saw Kate. Im not prepared to say Lawende saw "Jack", because Im not prepared to say "Jack" killed Kate with authority. And Im almost certain that this Jack fellow doesnt cut womens throats and then just walk away, doing nothing more.

If Diemshutz was right on his time, and Blackwell on his Time of Cut range...then at the very least there are 4 minutes with the corpse alone that the killer chose not to take advantage of. The opposite of Jack....Liz was just killed, others were killed so mutilations could take place.

Best regards Ben.

[Ben]

Norma, I'm very fond of you, but you're one of the very worst exponents of the mythical phantom theory associated with the murders. You say "it doesn't add" up, and it doesn't; at least not with the mental image of the killer you seem to have crystallized in your mind. Doesn't mean anyone should dismiss "it" on that basis.

This was a man of exceptional secrecy and stealth.

Not really. He was as stealthy and "secretive" as he could have been given the populated nature of the East End, but nothing special. Lawende almost certainly saw the killer. The timing was too tight to allow for the possibility of somebody else approaching Eddowes and dispatching her in the interval that elapsed between the Lawende sighting and the discovery of her body. In such a densely populated locality as Spitalfields, the killer was seen - probably on several occasions. He couldn't do much about that I'm afraid, and to argue that he was never seen is simply untenable; one of those wayward myths about the nature of the killer that has to be up there with gladstone bags and top hats.

Ditto Schwartz.He saw a man behaving badly.He didnt see the Ripper

Because he's not Gentleman Jack enough, I shouldn't wonder. Because he isn't "Hello little girl, tis a cold night, would you like a sweety?" enough. No, I think there's a very good chance that Schwartz saw the killer, and with Lawende it's almost certain.

It's boring, but likely.

[Natalie Severn]

Well quite frankly I cant buy that-----Jack the Ripper,of all the murderers ever read about,acting the goat like that in a police station.It doesnt add up.
This was a man of exceptional secrecy and stealth.
Lawende says he saw him" full face" standing at the corner of Church passage.No he didnt.The Ripper would not have stood,"full face " -like some wally- looking at three men,when he was about to cut someone to pieces.
Ditto Schwartz.He saw a man behaving badly.He didnt see the Ripper.
Best

[Ben]

Right on cue!

Hi Norma - We've had this discussion before, and I still don't see the need to posit the existence of an "alibi" for Hutchinson to explain the lack of interest in him as a suspect. It was very difficult for an ostensibly solitary loiterer to produce one from six weeks ago, unless he was doing something "special" or out of the ordinary. It's probable that they didn't suspect him because he'd got his story in first. That tactic is often successful today even with modern experience, and an 1888 police force were hardly expecting Jack the Ripper to march to the police and request an interview. Even if they did check his story out, the result of that "checking" was incredibly unlikely to ascertain his complicity or otherewise in the murders. Such checking was more likely than not to result in a "Don't know", and like most suspects (if he ever was one) he would have been released through lack of evidence and possibly kept under temporary surveillance.

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie /Norma here
I honestly think Hutchinson was someone who the police found an alibi for.Maybe not for the Mary Kelly murder but for one of the others.They knew he was somewhere else on one or two of those nights.He may have been known too in the district-pub landlords,other police.There is such a lot we dont know,I cant imagine somebody saying they were hanging around Mary"s room when she was being murdered -virtually-but then they did a bunk.No detective would swallow that without checking out some of his story.

Observer,
yes,I do think there may have been a Mr Astrakhan.I doubt he was the Ripper though.

[Ben]

We will never progress in our endeavour to find 'JACK' if a vast majority of casebook still believe Gh, was a Stalker/ Mugger/ attention seeker/ minder/ pimp/ lover/ and dare I say killer...

Well that's a silly thing to say, but apart from that, I've enjoyed reading this discussion, and for a subject I feel passionately about, I'm pleased to say that I've read nothing yet that would be cause me to lock antlers with anyone. I'm resisting that temptation until Natalie/Norma shows up....

That said, I do believe Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis. The "coincidence" of his coming forward as soon as Lewis' evidence became public knowledge is too strong to be purely random, and likewise, the congruity between his self-confessed actions and movements and those of the wideawake man are very difficult to chalk up to pure coincidence. I think he came forward because he realized he'd been seen and feared being implicated in the murder, whether he was actually involved in the murder or not.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Witnesses often come forth or are 'found' weeks, months, even years after a crime is committed. That in itself isn't reason enough to write Hutch off. But I agree with Ben that something about his involvement in all this seems a bit off.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[celee]

Hi,

I agree with Richard. George Hutchinson is a genuine witness and crediable.

Your friend, Brad

Hi Richard,

Theres is dispute that George was a "genuine" witness by coming forward Monday after the inquest....and there is dispute whether anything he said can be considered "genuine".

Best regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Let common sense prevail here, we have a man seen around an hour before the millers court victim apparently uttered her final farewells to her world., around 4am, standing right opposite the entrance to where that victim lived.
On Monday the 12th November, we have a man named George Hutchinson report to Commercial street station implying that he was that person, relaying that famous encounter with MjK, and Astracan, which we all [Except me] believe is false.
Question.
Why do we reject[ nearly all of us.... Not me] his suggestion that after a period of time , he simply'moved on.'
We will never progress in our endeavour to find 'JACK' if a vast majority of casebook still believe Gh, was a Stalker/ Mugger/ attention seeker/ minder/ pimp/ lover/ and dare I say killer...
Guys .
Gh was a genuine witness.
Regards Richard.