A stout JtR?

[Wickerman]

It's like I said. If you propose something like this, i.e - Hutchinson could not have heard about Lewis story of a man by Miller's Court, then you have to explain why he is turning himself in at all later, after the inquest, if he wasn't aware of any witness testimony. Either he is a responding to a witness report or not. If so, how did he get it.

Turning himself in?
There wasn't a wanted poster out for him.

Hutchinson went to the police after he told a fellow lodger what he had seen.

" I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to police station, which I did at night."

We don't know why he didn't go to the police sooner, but there is no shortage of legitimate reasons for the delay.

[Wickerman]

I see your argument Jon...the reason I emboldened a section was because I was considering your words when assessing any case that might be made for Schwartz. It distracted me,.. but I do see how you are making the distinction.

Cheers

Hi Michael.
I immediately saw a similarity between this Kennedy situation and your attempts to raise Mrs Mortimer's standing higher than it is.
The difference being, Mortimer tends to contradict what other witnesses say in the Berner St. case, while Kennedy is contradicted by nobody.

[Batman]

Turning himself in?
There wasn't a wanted poster out for him.

Hutchinson went to the police after he told a fellow lodger what he had seen.

" I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to police station, which I did at night."

We don't know why he didn't go to the police sooner, but there is no shortage of legitimate reasons for the delay.

Hutchinson claims he went to the police before he met the lodger but nothing came of this alledged police encounter (according to Hutchinson himself). Hutchison claims he told a fellow lodger about the incident, yet this story of his suspect never broke. All we have is this guy turning up post-inquest claiming things that we can't substantiate at all. Not one bit of it. It's faith based.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson claims he went to the police before he met the lodger but nothing came of this alledged police encounter (according to Hutchinson himself). Hutchison claims he told a fellow lodger about the incident, yet this story of his suspect never broke. All we have is this guy turning up post-inquest claiming things that we can't substantiate at all. Not one bit of it. It's faith based.

But, what you say above is not true, where are you getting this from?
It is not easy to debate something with you when you keep bringing up points that are not true.

Hutchinson did not claim to go to the police station before he spoke with a fellow lodger, in fact he says just the opposite.
What you might be referring to is that he told the press he met a constable on Sunday morning in the market (likely on his beat), and told him something. What he told the constable is not known, but a constable on point duty is not allowed to leave his duty.
Hutchinson tells us right there that he did not go to the police station.

A portion of Hutchinson's story has already been confirmed by Sarah Lewis.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael.
I immediately saw a similarity between this Kennedy situation and your attempts to raise Mrs Mortimer's standing higher than it is.
The difference being, Mortimer tends to contradict what other witnesses say in the Berner St. case, while Kennedy is contradicted by nobody.

All the people whose story contradicts Fanny have zero corroboration, they don't even corroborate each other...yet Fanny is corroborated by her sighting of the young couple and of her sighting of Goldstein. Not for this thread, but I thought it worth addressing when you posted.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

All the people whose story contradicts Fanny have zero corroboration, they don't even corroborate each other...yet Fanny is corroborated by her sighting of the young couple and of her sighting of Goldstein. Not for this thread, but I thought it worth addressing when you posted.

Cheers Jon

No problem Michael. I wasn't judging your efforts, just trying to summarize your problem.
Most researchers do not use Mortimer's statement to any effect, it isn't given preferential treatment.

[Batman]

But, what you say above is not true, where are you getting this from?
It is not easy to debate something with you when you keep bringing up points that are not true.

Hutchinson did not claim to go to the police station before he spoke with a fellow lodger, in fact he says just the opposite.

How about reading what I said first. I said absolutely nothing about a police station. You won't find that quote. I said he claimed to have talked to a policeman about what he saw.

What you might be referring to is that he told the press he met a constable on Sunday morning in the market (likely on his beat), and told him something. ]What he told the constable is not known, but a constable on point duty is not allowed to leave his duty.

I was out on Monday night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to police station, which I did at night. - Hutchinson

So this policeman didn't report that a man had told him he had witnessed the most notorious murder ever committed in London, even at that time? So what if he was on duty and not allowed to leave. Due you really think he would still say nothing back at the station?

A portion of Hutchinson's story has already been confirmed by Sarah Lewis.

What portion? Describe the confirmation for me. Describe what she saw and then describe what it is about Hutchinson that matches it. I say there isn't anything remotely to connect the two and you just take faith in Hutchinson's claims. She describes someone and you can't describe Hutchinson can you? We can't even demonstrate what he looks like because he did all this after the inquest.

[Wickerman]

I was out on Monday night until three o'clock looking for him. I could swear to the man anywhere. I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station. I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday, and he advised me to go to police station, which I did at night. - Hutchinson

So this policeman didn't report that a man had told him he had witnessed the most notorious murder ever committed in London, even at that time? So what if he was on duty and not allowed to leave. Due you really think he would still say nothing back at the station?

What makes you think the constable did not report his meeting with Hutchinson?

What portion? Describe the confirmation for me. Describe what she saw and then describe what it is about Hutchinson that matches it. I say there isn't anything remotely to connect the two and you just take faith in Hutchinson's claims. She describes someone and you can't describe Hutchinson can you? We can't even demonstrate what he looks like because he did all this after the inquest.

Round and round in circles...

[Batman]

What makes you think the constable did not report his meeting with Hutchinson?

I see no reason to believe Hutchinson even met a policeman. I doubt a PC with this information would have left it go.

Round and round in circles...

Everything Hutchinson has said can only be accepted on faith and then believing in his story. From the point of faith onwards, everything is coming from him, with no corroboration and no other witnesses to go around in circles in. It's just all him from his point of view.

[RockySullivan]

I guess hutch must have told his story to PC Thick. I think a man going to a policeman in the street and saying "I was outside the last ripper victims apartment for nearly an hour and caught a good look at the ripper" would certainly illicit a response from the policeman. He would probably take hutch down to the station and maybe even arrest him on suspicion.

[Wickerman]

I see no reason to believe Hutchinson even met a policeman.

No problem with that.
The problems arise when someone insists he didn't see a policeman.
Those who only 'believe' he didn't are naturally welcome to that opinion, but to say he 'didn't', or 'insist' requires a level of certainty above 'belief'.

I doubt a PC with this information would have left it go.

What information? We don't know what Hutchinson said he saw.

Look at it this way, on Sunday morning no-one knew what time the murder had taken place, and the Saturday press were speculating on times ranging from 2:00 well up to 8-9:00 am Friday morning. In fact some stated the murder was done at 9:00 am.

Now, Hutchinson tells this constable he saw Kelly about 2:00 am with a fancy looking fellow, the constable's response may well have been for him to run along to Commercial St. Stn. and tell the Duty Sergeant there. Besides, what use is a story about a 2:00 am sighting, if she was actually murdered seven hours later at 9:00 am?

Hutchinson also said "I did not go to the Station", why would he offer that? Unless the constable had actually advised to do just that.

Also, why was Hutchinson at the market on Sunday morning?
We don't know that either.

An out of work labourer like Hutchinson could well have been humping crates, labouring, so he cannot just quit and go to the Station at that moment. Likely he would lose his job.
By the time the end of the day came, he is too tired to be bothered.
Is there anything unnatural about that?
Is there anything suspicious about that?

Everything Hutchinson has said can only be accepted on faith and then believing in his story. From the point of faith onwards, everything is coming from him, with no corroboration and no other witnesses to go around in circles in. It's just all him from his point of view.

If you do not accept the loiterer seen by Sarah Lewis was Hutchinson then I understand the above point of view.
I admit it is a matter of belief, it cannot be proven, yet we do not know whether Abberline brought Lewis to the station to question her further, which would be a natural move by Abberline. We also do not know what his constables wrote in their notebooks that may have convinced Abberline there was some truth in Hutchinson's claim.
None of this we know, neither would the press.
Therefore, you must admit a great deal of activity could have gone on behind the scenes that we today would not know about.

This is why I keep repeating. We should not base our conclusions on what we know, but base them on what the police knew.
Most of what we 'know' is only what 'we think we know'.

[Wickerman]

I guess hutch must have told his story to PC Thick. I think a man going to a policeman in the street and saying "I was outside the last ripper victims apartment for nearly an hour and caught a good look at the ripper" would certainly illicit a response from the policeman. He would probably take hutch down to the station and maybe even arrest him on suspicion.

Hutchinson said he though he saw Astrachan in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning, likely this is when he called the attention of the policeman on duty at the same time & place.
Constables did do point duty at Markets, and some kind soul once provided me with a list of point duty locations, I will see if I can find it.

[Batman]

I admit it is a matter of belief, it cannot be proven, yet we do not know whether Abberline brought Lewis to the station to question her further, which would be a natural move by Abberline. Therefore, you must admit a great deal of activity could have gone on behind the scenes that we today would not know about.

This is why I keep repeating. We should not base our conclusions on what we know, but base them on what the police knew.
Most of what we 'know' is only what 'we think we know'.

Whatever persuaded Abberline to accept Hutchinson's account, I don't know. What I do accept happened is that following MJK's murder there was a door to door search conducted around Jewish homes. I suspect this was due to Hutchinson's claim and the need for the police to put a stop to these murders A.S.A.P as the monarchy/government where under increasing pressure from the unrest in the East End being stirred up by JtR. Since they had nothing else to go on, no evidence, they took a chance with Hutchinson and probably combined that with Bond's early profile of JtR. Robert House in his book on Kozminski covers these door to door searches for someone who could freely come and go without raising concern. The outcome of this was two-fold. They met resistance and this caused feelings in the force that they [jews] 'wouldn't give up one of their own'. They found at least one person who could have matched this profile. A Kozminski type character with mental illness, sexual problems, etc.

Whatever happened then, JtR stopped. If JtR stops, this is next best thing for Abberline and Swanson and everyone involved because it will resolve some tensions in the East End. From what I understand in the month after MJK was murdered there was a considerable drop in numbers from the force on the ground and the month after that there was hardly any. It all came to a close quickly it seems.

What you have is something like the Monster of Florence. Pietro Pacciani was identified as a possible suspect. While he had a violent history, had some connections to those involved and a witness suspect drawing looked a little like him, there was no real evidence against him. Yet he was jailed and the murders stopped. To the investigators involved, this was all they needed to know.

Hutchinson on the streets with police looking for JtR doesn't appear to have solved anything. So Abberline probably thought he got a break going after a Jewish suspect in the Jewish homes. It is known that killers of this type will stop if the investigation gets close.

If JtR stopped for other reasons it coincided with the events above and I think many people where relieved it had stopped and attributed it that move they made.

I think JtR stopped for other reasons than the above and I don't believe he was a Jew.

[Scott Nelson]

I think JtR stopped for other reasons than the above and I don't believe he was a Jew.

Well yeah. OK, Batman. You're a smart guy. Why not post using your real name?

[Batman]

What are you talking about? I am Batman!

Drop by Wayne Enterprises and ask for Bruce Wayne. He and I are buddies.