George Hutchinson Revisited

[richardnunweek]

Hi
What i am going to suggest depends on the authenticity of both Hutchinson , and Mrs Maxwell's account.
At 2 am Hutchinson saw Kelly with a man , and part of his statement says , She said 'Oh I have lost my handkerchief ' he hand s one to her,
At 8 am plus Mrs Maxwell says an additional part that we are not aware of now, ''Her eyes looked queer , like she was heavy in cold''.. I read this in early 1970's , I have no idea where , but it was in some kind of publication.
We can assume if both accounts were accurate, that Kelly was not killed between the hours of 2 am - 8.15 am, as if so how would Mrs M be able to make a reference to something that may have been the reason why Kelly wanted a handkerchief .
This would verify that Kelly was killed in daylight ,which initially . the police believed so.
The only reference to Mrs Maxwell suggestion , that Kelly may have needed a handkerchief , [I have been told on here years ago ] came from Donald mc'cormick And says '' All muffled up as in cold,'' Which is different then 'Her eyes looked queer, But the same meaning,
Regards Richard.

[Simon Wood]

Abandon hope all ye who open a book by Donald McCormick.

[Wickerman]

Hi
What i am going to suggest depends on the authenticity of both Hutchinson , and Mrs Maxwell's account.
At 2 am Hutchinson saw Kelly with a man , and part of his statement says , She said 'Oh I have lost my handkerchief ' he hand s one to her,
At 8 am plus Mrs Maxwell says an additional part that we are not aware of now, ''Her eyes looked queer , like she was heavy in cold''.. I read this in early 1970's , I have no idea where , but it was in some kind of publication.

Never heard of that, don't ever recall reading it. We must be careful though too many people apply creative license to what was really said, typically to help some personal theory of their own.

We can assume if both accounts were accurate, that Kelly was not killed between the hours of 2 am - 8.15 am, as if so how would Mrs M be able to make a reference to something that may have been the reason why Kelly wanted a handkerchief .
This would verify that Kelly was killed in daylight ,which initially . the police believed so.
The only reference to Mrs Maxwell suggestion , that Kelly may have needed a handkerchief , [I have been told on here years ago ] came from Donald mc'cormick And says '' All muffled up as in cold,'' Which is different then 'Her eyes looked queer, But the same meaning,
Regards Richard.

McCormick, yes the first Ripper book I bought, talk about starting at the bottom sources can only improve from that point.

[Wickerman]

The line you quoted saying, "The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success," is not in reference to Blotchy. The man is not Blotchy. The man in that sentence is not the individual Mary Ann Cox says she saw. The man written of in that sentence is a separate individual who was described by others in regard to a murder that wasn't of Mary Kelly.

You've repeated that point how many times?, the actual quote even says: "but they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox".
We know, the quote tells us, we don't need you repeating it over and over again.

The point that you seem to have missed is that the Echo (13th) told us that the force was divided (regardless between whom), the same article mentions "diminution" of Hutchinson's story.

A later paragraph then suggests Cox had established the appearance of the presumed murderer, but no-one was able to corroborate the appearance of the Hutchinson suspect - hence the "diminution".

The Star put their spin on the Echo story and took it a step further by suggesting Hutchinson's story had been discredited, it hadn't.

The Echo on the 19th further show how divided the authorities were on the subject, by now suggesting some believe Hutchinson, while others believe Cox.

If a newspaper does not believe a story, that does not make it 'discredited', it is the police who make that decision.
We know of no police opinion to suggest that, in fact we have the contrary.
If/when a story is discredited, the police do not believe it, and there will always be a reason.
If any police believe Hutchinson, then his story cannot have been discredited - it's really that simple.
A story must be proven wrong (containing lies/inaccuracies) for it to be discredited.

Nothing of the sort occurred.

Blotchy was seen with Mary Kelly at an earlier time. Even if Astrakhan was the favoured suspect, there are no grounds to discredit Mary Ann Cox's description of the man she saw or the rest of her account. He is still needed to be tracked down to confirm when he left Miller's Court. Therefore Mary Ann Cox is never discredited.

Yes, and the same consideration is applied to Hutchinson.

If Blotchy is the favoured suspect then Astrakhan and Hutchinson's account is discredited by default as he can't very well converse with a dead woman in the street let alone watch another man do the same before going to her room. If there were investigating officers who favoured Blotchy then they were openly dismissing Hutchinson's account, regardless of whether you think that was professional of them to do so or not. If the papers report on that being the circumstance then that's not spin, it's just how it was at that point.

Except, we have it in writing that some authorities ARE pursuing the Hutchinson suspect.

Your problem is your use of "favoured", the police know from experience that medical opinion can be contested. They also do not 'favour' one suspect over another in a case where the time of death is so uncertain.
Blotchy could have stayed until 3:30-3:45, and the Astrachan encounter simply never happened.
Likewise, Blotchy may have left at 1:00, and the Astrachan encounter was perfectly factual.

The police know this, they will investigate both suspects with the same vigor, which is what the story on the 19th is suggesting.

If you really think the police never dismiss a suspect until they have been thoroughly investigated then maybe you should look up the case of Stephen Port. The evidence was there but they dismissed him as a suspect and left him to kill again.

Clearly, he was not thoroughly investigated.

Why did you suggest Joseph Issacs was the man Hutchinson saw when you had already proven he couldn't have been anywhere near Dorset Street that morning?

Should I keep Joseph Issacs on my suspect list or take him off through discrediting your suggestion that he was the man Hutchinson described as the man in Mary Kelly's company?

If I recall, I ended that remark by saying something like: clearly, the Hutchinson suspect was foremost in Abberline's mind, even as late as Dec 6th.
He was wrong, this is true, but what this account makes clear is that the story of Astrachan was not discredited in Abberline's mind.

Back in 1887 Isaacs had been arrested at Dover posing as a detective, he was wearing an imitation gold chain with a sham medal hanging from it, but no watch.
Isaacs was a 30 yr old Jew who lived in Paternoster Row, off Dorset st. he was known to dress well above his station. When arrested in December 1888 a journalist wrote: ....."who's appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat".

[Curious Cat]

You've repeated that point how many times?, the actual quote even says: "but they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox".
We know, the quote tells us, we don't need you repeating it over and over again.

The point that you seem to have missed is that the Echo (13th) told us that the force was divided (regardless between whom), the same article mentions "diminution" of Hutchinson's story.

A later paragraph then suggests Cox had established the appearance of the presumed murderer, but no-one was able to corroborate the appearance of the Hutchinson suspect - hence the "diminution".

The Star put their spin on the Echo story and took it a step further by suggesting Hutchinson's story had been discredited, it hadn't.

The Echo on the 19th further show how divided the authorities were on the subject, by now suggesting some believe Hutchinson, while others believe Cox.

If a newspaper does not believe a story, that does not make it 'discredited', it is the police who make that decision.
We know of no police opinion to suggest that, in fact we have the contrary.
If/when a story is discredited, the police do not believe it, and there will always be a reason.
If any police believe Hutchinson, then his story cannot have been discredited - it's really that simple.
A story must be proven wrong (containing lies/inaccuracies) for it to be discredited.

Nothing of the sort occurred.




Yes, and the same consideration is applied to Hutchinson.



Except, we have it in writing that some authorities ARE pursuing the Hutchinson suspect.

Your problem is your use of "favoured", the police know from experience that medical opinion can be contested. They also do not 'favour' one suspect over another in a case where the time of death is so uncertain.
Blotchy could have stayed until 3:30-3:45, and the Astrachan encounter simply never happened.
Likewise, Blotchy may have left at 1:00, and the Astrachan encounter was perfectly factual.

The police know this, they will investigate both suspects with the same vigor, which is what the story on the 19th is suggesting.



Clearly, he was not thoroughly investigated.




If I recall, I ended that remark by saying something like: clearly, the Hutchinson suspect was foremost in Abberline's mind, even as late as Dec 6th.
He was wrong, this is true, but what this account makes clear is that the story of Astrachan was not discredited in Abberline's mind.

Back in 1887 Isaacs had been arrested at Dover posing as a detective, he was wearing an imitation gold chain with a sham medal hanging from it, but no watch.
Isaacs was a 30 yr old Jew who lived in Paternoster Row, off Dorset st. he was known to dress well above his station. When arrested in December 1888 a journalist wrote: ....."who's appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat".

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

Thanks for finally clearing that up.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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?