Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Not everyone was as sold on GH as Abberline appears to have been. Here are two contemporary examples of healthy scepticism.

Evening Star (Washington, D.C.)
Wednesday, 14 November 1888

"The London police have celebrated the retirement of their chief by stumbling upon the first clue which looks as if it could possibly lead to anything. Unless the story told by the man Hutchinson is made out of whole cloth ["utterly without foundation in fact"] - a question which it ought not to take a competent detective two hours to settle - there is now a shadow of hope of capturing the miscreant who has been committing so much butchery. [my brackets]

"But, in the meantime, it would be just as well to keep a sharp eye upon Hutchinson himself. He may be a convenient person to have about at a critical stage of the investigation which is soon to follow. The man popularly known as "Jack the Ripper" is full of devices, and it would not be surprising if it were found necessary later to put Hutchinson in his turn on the defensive."

The Graphic
Saturday, 17 November 1888

" . . . It is true that on this last occasion a man has given a very precise description of the supposed murderer. The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as 'a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots,' and 'a red stone hanging from his watch-chain,' must possess the eyes of a born detective . . ."

Regards,

Simon

[Chava]

Hi Observer!

The thing that stands out for me in l'affaire Hutchinson is that they immediately went back to looking for Blotchy Face. Which meant that they discounted every facet of Hutchinson's statement. I could see them disbelieving his x-ray vision, but I don't see why he still couldn't have seen Kelly in the street at 2.00 am and maybe followed her and her trick back to Millers Court. If he is indeed the man Lewis saw standing at the entrance to the court, then his evidence as to what he saw and didn't see would have been extremely useful, and it takes Blotchy Face completely off the hook. But BF isn't off the hook. So Hutchinson may have later admitted that he was hanging around the entrance to the court but didn't see Kelly at all. Or someone or something sent up a comprehensive red flag to the police. I do think it's possible he was the man seen by Lewis, however his behaviour is inexplainable without his secondary story about Kelly. If he wasn't waiting to see her or to kip down in her room, why on earth was he there?

Simon, that 'utterly without foundation' was in quotes in the text? I wonder who said that...

[Observer]

Hi Simon

Think of all those Victorian amateur slueths shaking their heads in disbelief when reading of Hutchinsons statement in their evening newspapers. Did Abberline have a preconcieved image of what the killer looked like though? Did Hutchinsons description tally in some way with who Abberline was looking for? I doubt whether Abberline would be as inexpierienced as the following, but I wonder if Abberline suggesting certain features regarding his suspect, and Hutchinson agreed with him?

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Thanks for those, Simon. Yes, the second paragraph of the Washing Evening Star article is quite something!

Hi Chava,

but I don't see why he still couldn't have seen Kelly in the street at 2.00 am and maybe followed her and her trick back to Millers Court.

Well, strictly speaking, there's no evidence that the police dismissed this aspect of his account, just the suspect description. For example, they might have ended up believing that Hutchinson was where he said he was, but that there was no "trick" to speak of. Even if they believed that there was a trick (albeit not Astrakhan) seen by Hutchinson, that wouldn't be an excuse to let Blotchy off the hook completely. The latter still warranted investigation (and certainly tracking down) even if the evidence suggested he wasn't the last client.

If he wasn't waiting to see her or to kip down in her room, why on earth was he there?

Waiting for a client to skidaddle (possibly Blotchy) so he could gain entry, perhaps?

All the best,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chava,

I put in the "utterly without foundation" as a note of explanation. See the [my brackets] notation. The meaning of the phrase 'whole cloth' has changed over the centuries, but that was the US meaning at the time.

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

Hi Chava

Hi Observer!

I do think it's possible he was the man seen by Lewis, however his behaviour is inexplainable without his secondary story about Kelly. If he wasn't waiting to see her or to kip down in her room, why on earth was he there?

Why indeed. Kelly could have disposed of Blotchy, and went back on the streets, and a scenario as suggested by me in (post 79 this thread) could have developed. Then again, there's umpteen scenarios that would fit the known facts,and of course one of those scenario's is the correct one.

All the best

Observer

[perrymason]

If I might offer a suggestion....you could eliminate many of the "umpteen" explanations for the unfolding of events November 8th and 9th in Millers Court if you no longer seek to create "clients", and you except that since November 15th-16th 1888, Blotchy Man is the suspect of record last seen with Mary.

This analysis becomes infinitely harder when unseen trips are treated as a certainty, and assumptions about Mary Kelly are used, that are without foundation.

If you use only whats valid, Mary went in at 11:45pm with Blotchy Man on November 8th, and Mary was found dead in her bed a little over 11 hours after her arrival home. Her room was said to be dark and quiet by 2 separate witness, a third paid no attention, by 1:30am. That does not change until at least 3am when Mary Ann Cox makes her last past by, coming in for the night.

There are various explanations still available, but not "umpteen", but at least the explanations would have to be based on witness sighting that were treated as authoritative by investigators, the known facts, and the answers would therefore stand a greater chance of being correct.

Im sure all are familiar with the expression GIGO....when imagined trips and unaccredited witness accounts start permeating the argument, the conclusions must be flawed.

Mary going out, picking up a client like Astrakan or anyone else, is Garbage In....

George Hutchinsons Astrakan Man is Garbage In...

Carrie Maxwells morning chat is Garbage In....

There is secondary support for none of those. Only the witnesses sworn statement that they spoke accurately. And to that issue, we know one not at the Inquest is trusted for only 2 or 3 days, and we know one that from the outset was known to be incorrect, due to the PM having been completed prior to her taking the stand.

Best regards.

[Chava]

Hi Observer,

I think it is possible that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis, but I don't think it's likely. I think it's likely that he made up the whole thing, or perhaps used elements of an encounter he'd had with Kelly on a different day but it's possible that he was describing something he'd seen that night.

One question we haven't really discussed is why the police believed Mary Ann Cox. Her evidence isn't substantiated either beyond other people hearing Kelly singing at that time. But the police believe her and continue to look for Blotchy Face. Then they hear Hutchinson's evidence and believe him for a very short time and start to look for Mr A. Then they discount that completely and revert to Blotchy Face. So there is something about Cox's statement that inspires belief and something about Hutchinson's statement that on some kind of scrutiny inspires distrust.

[Ben]

I think it is possible that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis, but I don't think it's likely

I'd switch that around personally, Chava, and would suggest that it's possible that Hutchinson wasn't Lewis' man, but ultimately unlikely. Too much of a coincidence that he came forward with a "2:30am loitering man" admission as soon as Sarah Lewis' "2:30am loitering man" sighting was made public.

That said, I rather like the suggestion that Hutchinson may have "used elements of an encounter he'd had with Kelly" either on that night or a previous one. I feel that has merit.

[Observer]

Hi Mike

If I might offer a suggestion....you could eliminate many of the "umpteen" explanations for the unfolding of events November 8th and 9th in Millers Court if you no longer seek to create "clients", and you except that since November 15th-16th 1888, Blotchy Man is the suspect of record last seen with Mary.



There are various explanations still available, but not "umpteen",
Im sure all are familiar with the expression GIGO....when imagined trips and unaccredited witness accounts start permeating the argument, the conclusions must be flawed.

If Sarah Lewis had not sighted a man peering up Millers court "as if waiting for someone to emerge" on the morning of the 9th Nov, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case is it? Even if he's not Hutchinson, then he promotes umpteen reasons as to why he was precoccupied with what would become a murder site.

All the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Chava

Hi Observer,

I think it is possible that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis, but I don't think it's likely. I think it's likely that he made up the whole thing, or perhaps used elements of an encounter he'd had with Kelly on a different day but it's possible that he was describing something he'd seen that night.

One question we haven't really discussed is why the police believed Mary Ann Cox. Her evidence isn't substantiated either beyond other people hearing Kelly singing at that time. But the police believe her and continue to look for Blotchy Face. Then they hear Hutchinson's evidence and believe him for a very short time and start to look for Mr A. Then they discount that completely and revert to Blotchy Face. So there is something about Cox's statement that inspires belief and something about Hutchinson's statement that on some kind of scrutiny inspires distrust.

At least Cox provided the police with a believable suspect. I wonder how many of the police who searched for Mr A really believed in the suspect they were looking for? I wonder if Hutchinson could have admitted that his statement was lies and escaped prosecution?

All the best

Observer

[Dan Norder]

you could eliminate many of the "umpteen" explanations for the unfolding of events November 8th and 9th in Millers Court if you no longer seek to create "clients", and you except that since November 15th-16th 1888, Blotchy Man is the suspect of record last seen with Mary.

You act like have multiple explanations is a bad thing. If people want to have any sort of realistic appraisal of what might have happened back in 1888, the way to do that it to accept large number of plausible explanations for the limited evidence we have.

Blotchy-Faced Man may or may not be the last person spotted with Mary, but insisting that people accept it (presumably what you meant by "except") as if it were a proven fact is not reasonable.

And any pretense of trying to be realistic goes completely out the window once you deny that a known prostitute had clients. None of us have to "create" them, as she obviously had some.

[caz]

As for the carriage thing, I thought you were talking about West End Toffs, not the average middle-class or lower middle-class punter of whom there were thousands and thousands living and visiting in the area. They would have walked or gone on the omnibus. The Diary of a Nobody, which came out in 1888, talks of that all the time. The Toffs, I think, would have arrived at the music-hall in their carriages and left the same way.

Hi Chava,

I don't know why you thought I was talking about West End Toffs. As you say, thousands upon thousands of ordinary lower middle-class punters would have been frequenting the areas we discuss here, such as the main thoroughfares, where a woman could be picked up cheaply and expected to take a man somewhere quiet where he could get a bit of relief from life's treadmill.

My point was that this rich seam of potential rippers tends to be studiously avoided by some (not you of course), and I suspect it's not down to ignorance but a need to make any alternative to a dirt poor East End ripper sound ludicrous. So it has to be regularly implied that the only alternative is a wealthy West End toff straying into forbidden territory, which is, er, ludicrous.

Incidentally, The Diary of a Nobody was first serialised in Punch in 1888. Did you know that the term ‘double event’ appears in the text? I can’t recall which chapter or in what context, but I find the usage interesting.

Thanks for those, Simon. Yes, the second paragraph of the Washing Evening Star article is quite something!

Hi Ben,

Isn't it just?

"But, in the meantime, it would be just as well to keep a sharp eye upon Hutchinson himself. He may be a convenient person to have about at a critical stage of the investigation which is soon to follow. The man popularly known as "Jack the Ripper" is full of devices, and it would not be surprising if it were found necessary later to put Hutchinson in his turn on the defensive."

It goes to show that the notion of one of his 'devices' being to waltz into the police station pretending to be a potential witness for the prosecution did not escape the journalists of the day, despite your insistence that none of our boys in blue who were up close and personal to events could possibly have imagined such a possibility back in 1888. Too bad they were reading the wrong papers otherwise they could have picked up a tip or two from those smart press guys.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Caz,

Incidentally, The Diary of a Nobody was first serialised in Punch in 1888. Did you know that the term ‘double event’ appears in the text? I can’t recall which chapter or in what context, but I find the usage interesting.

Courtesy of Project Gutenberg:

Chapter 14: January 5
I can scarcely write the news. Mr. Perkupp told me my salary would be raised 100 pounds! I stood gaping for a moment unable to realise it. I annually get 10 pounds rise, and I thought it might be 15 pounds or even 20 pounds; but 100 pounds surpasses all belief. Carrie and I both rejoiced over our good fortune.

Lupin came home in the evening in the utmost good spirits. I sent Sarah quietly round to the grocer's for a bottle of champagne, the same as we had before, "Jackson Freres." It was opened at supper, and I said to Lupin: "This is to celebrate some good news I have received to-day." Lupin replied: "Hooray, Guv! And I have some good news, also; a double event, eh?"

[Ben]

As you say, thousands upon thousands of ordinary lower middle-class punters

Woah!

"Thousands upon thousands", Caz?

It depends how you're defining "lower middle-class" I guess, but working class men and women still comprised the vast majority of the local populace, and no, working class does not necessarily mean "dirt poor".

despite your insistence that none of our boys in blue who were up close and personal to events could possibly have imagined such a possibility back in 1888

Which insistence was this?

Time to borrow from an earlier thread, methinks, to find out what I really said: "Either they suspected him or they didn't. We have no evidence either way. There are good reasons for suspecting they didn't, but equally, there are good reasons for suspecting that they may have done. Whichever option you choose to go with, Hutchinson doesn't get ruled out. He just doesn't. It doesn't happen, not without positing the imaginary existence of something that was almost certainly never there or inventing some completely baseless "alibi" from weeks and weeks ago." - From 10th Marth '08.

All the best,
Ben