George Hutchinson Revisited

[Wickerman]

Could Cohen have been Kosminski?

Cohen was likely just as innocent as Kozminski.

[Scott Nelson]

Could Hutchinson and Isaacs have met at Victoria Home?

[Curious Cat]

While it is possible, Hutch may have known the man. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that, beyond the coincidence that Isaac's 'apparently' looked like Astrachan.

I've told you my position.
"The least popular view of Hutchinson is that he was simply telling the truth, it's boring, uneventful and lacks intrigue, yet in my view it is the only reasonable solution."

And I gave you all the principal reasons why, in post #70.
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ge5#post759469

It was you who brought up the possibility Hutchinson was setting up Joseph Isaacs. It never occurred me he might have been attempting to implicate someone he knew. For me his description is either made up completely and the man didn't exist at all or made up to deflect from either himself or someone else being the man.

[Scott Nelson]

A dilemma which did not concern Anderson, he was hell bent on charging Kozminski come hell or high water.

Could Cohen have been Kosminski?

[Wickerman]

Do you think Hutchinson set out to implicate Joseph Issacs?

While it is possible, Hutch may have known the man. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that, beyond the coincidence that Isaac's 'apparently' looked like Astrachan.

I've told you my position.
"The least popular view of Hutchinson is that he was simply telling the truth, it's boring, uneventful and lacks intrigue, yet in my view it is the only reasonable solution."

And I gave you all the principal reasons why, in post #70.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/hutchinson-george-aa/759148-george-hutchinson-revisited/page5#post759469

[Curious Cat]

It's quite straight forward.
If, Hutchinson truly described Joseph Isaacs, there are only two possible conclusions.
Either, Hutchinson had the wrong night - which is a theory already proposed, or
Hutchinson intentionally tried to frame an innocent man.

It's just as likely however, that a middle-aged well-to-do Jew was not such an unusual sight in that part of town, and coats trimmed with Astrachan were quite popular among East Europeans anyway, which is the option I favor.

It's just that theories are 'supposed' to be driven by 'the evidence', and what I laid out above is exactly that.

Alternately, a number of posters are more inclined to invent circumstances with which to criticize Hutchinson to make him appear to be a liar or criminally involved in this murder.
The objection I have is people will invent accusations mostly based on their own limitations, and reflect them on to Hutchinson.
'He' couldn't have walked from Romford, like he claimed, etc.
'He' should have know the Vic. Home would have been closed so he should have had a pass, etc.
'He' couldn't possibly see & recall all the detail he claimed concerning the appearance of Astrachan.
'No-one' would dress the way 'He' described the suspect at that hour, in that part of town.
'He' was discredited by police, and so he was a liar.
Or simply, 'He' was proven to have lied.

Apart from the suggestion in the press that Hutch had been discredited (but by whom, and where's the evidence?), all the other points are inventions by modern theorists.

The least popular view of Hutchinson is that he was simply telling the truth, it's boring, uneventful and lacks intrigue, yet in my view it is the only reasonable solution.

Do you think Hutchinson set out to implicate Joseph Issacs?

[Wickerman]

It's quite straight forward.
If, Hutchinson truly described Joseph Isaacs, there are only two possible conclusions.
Either, Hutchinson had the wrong night - which is a theory already proposed, or
Hutchinson intentionally tried to frame an innocent man.

It's just as likely however, that a middle-aged well-to-do Jew was not such an unusual sight in that part of town, and coats trimmed with Astrachan were quite popular among East Europeans anyway, which is the option I favor.

It's just that theories are 'supposed' to be driven by 'the evidence', and what I laid out above is exactly that.

Alternately, a number of posters are more inclined to invent circumstances with which to criticize Hutchinson to make him appear to be a liar or criminally involved in this murder.
The objection I have is people will invent accusations mostly based on their own limitations, and reflect them on to Hutchinson.
'He' couldn't have walked from Romford, like he claimed, etc.
'He' should have know the Vic. Home would have been closed so he should have had a pass, etc.
'He' couldn't possibly see & recall all the detail he claimed concerning the appearance of Astrachan.
'No-one' would dress the way 'He' described the suspect at that hour, in that part of town.
'He' was discredited by police, and so he was a liar.
Or simply, 'He' was proven to have lied.

Apart from the suggestion in the press that Hutch had been discredited (but by whom, and where's the evidence?), all the other points are inventions by modern theorists.

The least popular view of Hutchinson is that he was simply telling the truth, it's boring, uneventful and lacks intrigue, yet in my view it is the only reasonable solution.

[Curious Cat]

No.



No.

How then do you reconcile thinking Hutchinson was setting up Joseph Issacs - a man who could not have been there - but still maintain his description of the man he said he saw with Mary Kelly was genuine?

[Wickerman]

Do you think Hutchinson made up the description of the man he said he saw with Mary Kelly?

No.

you think Hutchinson made up seeing any man with Mary Kelly?

No.

[Curious Cat]

Nothing will change.
- Hutchinson did claim to stand opposite Millers Court and watch a man accompany Kelly up the passage.
- Sarah Lewis did claim to see a man & woman walk up the passage as she approached Millers Court, while a man was standing opposite.
- Bowyer did claim to see a man in the court "whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer", about 3:00 am.
- Mrs McCarthy did claim that one of her customers said: "I saw such a funny man up the court this morning", before the murder was known.
- Mrs Kennedy did claim to see Kelly talking to a suspicious character about 3:00am outside the Britannia on Friday morning.
- Following their receipt of Hutchinson's statement, the police did canvass the residents of Millers Court a second time, and learned that Mary Kelly had been out of her room and in Dorset St. between 2:00-3:00 on the morning of the murder.

Historically speaking, those details (facts?) will never change. They are the historical record as far as any corroboration of the statement by George Hutchinson.

Do you think Hutchinson made up the description of the man he said he saw with Mary Kelly?

Do you think Hutchinson made up seeing any man with Mary Kelly?

[Wickerman]

So where does this leave Hutchinson's statement?

Partly discredited or completely out the window?

Nothing will change.
- Hutchinson did claim to stand opposite Millers Court and watch a man accompany Kelly up the passage.
- Sarah Lewis did claim to see a man & woman walk up the passage as she approached Millers Court, while a man was standing opposite.
- Bowyer did claim to see a man in the court "whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer", about 3:00 am.
- Mrs McCarthy did claim that one of her customers said: "I saw such a funny man up the court this morning", before the murder was known.
- Mrs Kennedy did claim to see Kelly talking to a suspicious character about 3:00am outside the Britannia on Friday morning.
- Following their receipt of Hutchinson's statement, the police did canvass the residents of Millers Court a second time, and learned that Mary Kelly had been out of her room and in Dorset St. between 2:00-3:00 on the morning of the murder.

Historically speaking, those details (facts?) will never change. They are the historical record as far as any corroboration of the statement by George Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

Partly discredited. Once Joseph Isaacs was jailed with David Cohen, the police had to decide which of them was most likely the culprit.

A dilemma which did not concern Anderson, he was hell bent on charging Kozminski come hell or high water.

[Scott Nelson]

Partly discredited. Once Joseph Isaacs was jailed with David Cohen, the police had to decide which of them was most likely the culprit.

[Curious Cat]

Probably tried to frame Isaacs, just didn't realize the police already had him waiting on her Majesty's pleasure.

So where does this leave Hutchinson's statement?

Partly discredited or completely out the window?

[Wickerman]

Brilliant. Then Hutchinson's ploy worked. The police arrested the wrong man because he gave a false description.

Thanks for finally clearing that up.

Probably tried to frame Isaacs, just didn't realize the police already had him waiting on her Majesty's pleasure.